ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked-

Tourism

Nicky Morgan: What recent progress his Department has made on the promotion of the UK as a tourist destination.

Stephen Mosley: What recent progress his Department has made on the promotion of the UK as a tourist destination.

John Penrose: With private sector partners, the Government are creating a major, new overseas marketing fund. We are looking to create a fund of £100 million over the next four years which aims to deliver 1 million additional international visitors to the UK and £2 billion in extra visitor spend.

Nicky Morgan: I thank the Minister for his reply. As he will know, the Government are rightly focused on an agenda of growth across our economy. Does he agree that tourism, especially to the regions, such as Leicestershire, and to regional attractions such as the Great Central railway, is a key part of that growth strategy?

John Penrose: I absolutely agree. One of the key points about tourism is that it is an efficient and rapid way of driving economic growth and regeneration and that it does that in all parts of the country outside the south-east. It is an excellent tool for rebalancing our economy.

Stephen Mosley: My constituency is home to Chester zoo, one of our nation's foremost visitor attractions. With more than 25 million people visiting zoos and aquariums in the UK every year, what help can the Minister offer to promote such an important part of our visitor economy?

John Penrose: We are engaged in a recalibration and reorganisation of local tourist boards-destination management organisations, to use the jargon-which are being refocused to become more private sector-led. The express intention is to give prominent attractions, such as Chester zoo, a much bigger and stronger say in how their local destinations are promoted and marketed to tourists in the UK and abroad.

David Hanson: What assessment has the Minister made of the rise in VAT on the potential for the promotion of tourism? Would he explain to people who provide tourism products whether they should absorb the cost of that rise, thereby cutting their profits, or pass it on to their customers, thereby offering a disincentive for tourism in the UK?

John Penrose: Clearly the rise in VAT is principally a matter for the Treasury, but it affects all economic sectors and every business in the country will have to make precisely the judgment that the right hon. Gentleman describes. As a politician, I would not dream of telling individual businesses how to run their business-it must rightly be a matter for them-but I am sure that, because they have skin in the game, they will make the right decision for their business in their particular sector.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Minister aware of how important literary houses in the UK are to visitors from overseas and from this country? I chair the John Clare Trust-he was one of our greatest poets of the countryside and environment. It is very difficult these days to get a brown sign or any help to put such attractions on the map. Can the Minister help us?

John Penrose: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that our listed houses are major tourist attractions, and that includes our great heritage houses and the smaller and more modest places that are listed. If he is interested in promoting them more effectively, and I applaud his efforts in doing so, he should speak first with his local tourist board, which will be refocused in the way I have explained. We are also evaluating whether there are other ways to improve things such as signage, and not just brown signs, but signs at major transport interchanges, such as those that direct people on how to get to a particular attraction once they have arrived at a train station. All those points are essential and should be handled by the newly refocused and, I hope, revitalised local tourist boards.

Grass-roots Sport

David Evennett: What proportion of sport governing bodies have committed to spend 30% of their broadcast income on grass-roots sports.

Hugh Robertson: As these are the first departmental questions since the new year, I will start by putting on the record-I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members-our congratulations to the England cricket team for their triumph in Australia this winter.
	At the same time as announcing the decision on listing of sports television coverage in the summer, I challenged sports to take a hard look at what more they could do to increase the proportion of their broadcast income that they spend on their grass roots. I am delighted to say that on 22 December all six of the governing bodies that are part of the Sport and Recreation Alliance's voluntary code committed to ensure that at least 30% of the net revenues from their UK broadcasting rights are reinvested. In total, that means that at least £250 million a year will go to grass-roots sport.

David Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which is welcome news for sport, and I am sure that we all congratulate him on what he is doing. Can he confirm that, together with reforms to the national lottery, that will mean that funding going to grass-roots sports will be higher at the end of this Parliament than it was under the previous Labour Government?

Hugh Robertson: That is indeed correct. Sport England will experience a small dip next year, but after that the lottery reforms kick in and its income will be up by 14% at the end of this comprehensive spending review period.

Richard Harrington: At the end of November, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), announced that he was setting up a UK film forum to plot the progress of UK film industry funding. Can the Minister for Sport and the Olympics inform the House whether the forum has met and what progress has been made?

Mr Speaker: Order. We are talking about sport, and I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to request a similar facility in relation to sport.

Richard Harrington: The point is that it is a form of sport for me.

Mr Speaker: Right. A one-sentence reply from the Minister will suffice.

Hugh Robertson: It is probably safest to say that that is a very helpful suggestion and I will look at it.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Minister and to the hon. Gentleman.
	Liz Kendall. Not here. I call Heidi Alexander.

Olympics (Economic Legacy)

Heidi Alexander: What recent discussions his Department has had with the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Greater London authority on the economic legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games.

Hugh Robertson: We are working closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Greater London authority to ensure an economic legacy for London, and we are in regular contact with the six east London host boroughs. London businesses, including five in the borough of Lewisham, which I know will please the hon. Lady, have already won from the Olympic Delivery Authority contracts with a total value of more than £3 billion.

Heidi Alexander: May I press the Minister on the affordability of the housing that will be available in the athletes village once the games are over, particularly the flats that will be up for sale on the private market? On a recent visit to the Olympic site, I was told that the anticipated asking price for a two-bedroom flat is between £350,000 and £400,000. Does the Minister agree that that puts those properties out of reach of the vast majority of ordinary people and, in particular, ordinary Londoners?

Hugh Robertson: I shall answer the question in two parts. Let us remember that a considerable portion of the houses in the Olympic village has already been acquired by Triathlon Homes as affordable housing; that is very much a key part of the scheme. In terms of what happens to the Olympic village after the games, we have been extremely careful with the expressions of interests that we have looked at precisely not to put housing values on it, so I do not know where the hon. Lady got that figure from. It might be a market guesstimate, but it is no more than that at the moment.

Tessa Jowell: I am sure we all agree that the economic legacy of the Olympic park will be in part secured by identifying a long-term tenant for the Olympic stadium. Does the Minister therefore agree that when we bid to host the games, the bid book was clear that the stadium's legacy would have athletics at its core, with associated multi-sport availability for the local community? Does he also recognise that the Olympic Park Legacy Company will make a decision on the tenant on 28 January? There are two contenders, Tottenham Hotspur and West Ham football clubs, but does he agree that only the joint bid from Newham council and West Ham football club fulfils the commitments we made when we won the games?

Hugh Robertson: The right hon. Lady is of course correct. At the time of the bid, the commitment was to leave a 25,000-seater mixed-use stadium, with athletics at its core, so we have already broken a part of that, in that there is not going to be-I would guess-a 25,000-seater stadium. I hear what she says about the future of the Olympic stadium, as I have had my ear bent on the issue by a number of hon. Members. The Olympic Park Legacy Company is going through a quasi-judicial process, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment either way at this stage, but I hear what she says.

Community Broadband

Daniel Poulter: What recent progress he has made on the roll-out of community broadband; and if he will make a statement.

Edward Vaizey: My officials continue to engage with local authorities, local enterprise partnerships and the devolved Administrations regarding the next wave of funding for superfast broadband as part of the £530 million that we have secured from the TV licence fee settlement. The next locations for funded projects are due to be announced in May 2011.

Daniel Poulter: As the Minister is aware, Suffolk is a particularly rural county that will derive significant economic benefits from the widespread deployment of high-speed broadband. He will be aware also of our advanced stage of preparedness in having a public-private partnership to deliver it, so will he please be a little more specific and tell us when he is going to announce the timeline for the next delivery phase of those broadband projects?

Edward Vaizey: I am delighted to do that. We have set aside £50 million for the next wave of superfast broadband projects, and as we hope to announce the winners in May, we will shortly be tendering for them.

Mark Tami: What discussions has the Minister had with BT and other suppliers who still produce maps showing broadband coverage, sign people up and take their money, only for them to find that broadband does not work and probably will not work for many years?

Edward Vaizey: We regularly have discussions with the operators on the advertised broadband speeds that they put out. As Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority have made clear, it is very important that broadband operators should be clear about what speeds are available. However, I am happy to pursue further the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Ian Swales: Is the Minister aware that in many parts of the country broadband access is quite good in domestic premises, because the roll-out of cable TV has dealt with domestic problems, but often very poor in commercial premises in high streets and business parks?

Edward Vaizey: Yes. It is important to emphasise that even in an area where, in theory, superfast broadband already exists, there will still be patches where the broadband connections are not as good. That is why we have set aside such a substantial sum of money to help with the roll-out of broadband.

Olympics (Scotland)

Jim McGovern: What plans his Department has to enable Scotland to benefit from the London 2012 Olympics.

Hugh Robertson: The UK Government have set out their plans to make the most of the games for the UK as a whole. Twenty-three businesses registered in Scotland have won work supplying the Olympic Delivery Authority and 36 contracts have been awarded to Scottish businesses through CompeteFor, the online brokerage service. In addition, I regularly meet the Scottish Government to ensure that Scotland continues to benefit from London 2012 and to support their plans for the Commonwealth games in 2014. I am meeting sports Ministers from the devolved nations next month.

Jim McGovern: I thank the Minister for his response. Next year, it will be four years since Team GB's fantastic showing in Beijing. I am delighted to say that one of the supreme athletes of that team, Chris Hoy, said at the time when he won his medals that he was proud to be Scottish but also proud to be part of the UK team, and that he could not have achieved what he did had he not been part of it. I think that that sentiment would be echoed by almost all Members of this House apart from the separatists. Might the Government produce a report, or send me a letter, outlining exactly what benefits Scotland will see from the 2012 Olympics?

Hugh Robertson: Yes, certainly. To some extent, I answered that question when I said that 23 businesses have won work and 36 contracts have been achieved through CompeteFor. Many Scottish athletes play a key part in our Olympic preparations; the hon. Gentleman mentioned one of many. The Scottish team is an integral part of Team GB and will, I am sure, contribute greatly to what I hope will be a record-busting haul at the London Olympics.

Pete Wishart: Is it not the truth, though, that Scotland will get absolutely zilch from the London Olympics? Written questions have revealed that out of 1,433 tier 1 contracts, Scotland has secured a measly 25. Yet the Minister will still not agree to apply the Barnett consequentials, which means that Scotland is owed some £165 million. Does not that make an absolute joke of the claim by Conservatives and Labour that this is a games for the whole country, when it is clearly a games for England and the south-east?

Hugh Robertson: My definition of zilch is not 23 businesses and 36 contracts-that is not zilch in anybody's language, even Scottish. Also, Scottish athletes will benefit from the changes made to the lottery. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that 23 businesses, 36 contracts and a lot of athletes is not zilch.

Creative and Leisure Industries

Shabana Mahmood: What steps his Department is taking to support jobs and economic growth in the creative industries and leisure sectors.

Edward Vaizey: The creative and leisure industries have an important role in driving economic growth. We are therefore undertaking a number of initiatives to support these sectors, including a digital and creative industries growth review, the creation of Creative England, which will have a hub in Birmingham, a new overseas marketing fund for tourism, and the development of a new tourism strategy that will help to support the growth in tourism and leisure industries.

Shabana Mahmood: My constituency includes some major employers in the leisure, creative and tourism industries, from the premiership football clubs, Aston Villa and Birmingham City, to the Symphony hall and Hippodrome theatre. With the regional development agencies being abolished and local enterprise partnerships having no statutory role to promote tourism, what are the Government doing to support these vital jobs in my constituency?

Edward Vaizey: I understand that Visit England has a transition team, which the hon. Lady should call. I take this opportunity to heap praise on Birmingham as a creative and cultural centre. Perhaps everyone in the House could welcome the new Birmingham central library, in which some £200 million is being invested-a good news story for libraries.

High-speed Broadband

Julian Smith: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the telecommunications industry on the delivery of high-speed broadband.

Edward Vaizey: I am working intensively to ensure that the UK has the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015, and I am in constant contact with a wide range of telecoms companies and other stakeholders in that connection.

Julian Smith: On 19 February, I and other North Yorkshire MPs from across the House will host the Ripon conference to celebrate North Yorkshire's winning one of the superfast broadband pilots. It will bring together members of all parts of the community to consider how superfast broadband can made a difference to every part of North Yorkshire. Will he send a message to the conference or, hopefully, attend it?

Edward Vaizey: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the people of North Yorkshire on getting one of the pilots. I hope that I can make it to the conference. I spent new year's eve in North Yorkshire before continuing my holidays in Newcastle.

Stephen Timms: Following the unfortunate conversation between the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and journalists from  The Daily Telegraph, the whole of telecommunications policy has been vested in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. What steps will the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport take to ensure that the Department takes full account of the interests of internet users and service providers, as well as the content providers that have been its historical interest?

Edward Vaizey: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a number of officials will move over from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills-indeed, they used to work for him. They are very experienced in working with internet service providers and others.

Don Foster: About 50% of households have access to high-speed broadband, but sadly only about 0.2% of them have bothered to sign up. Does the Minister agree that if we are to get what he wants, which is the best high-speed broadband in Europe, we have to stimulate demand for it? Does he agree that the BBC should use some of the money allocated to it for this area of work to stimulate demand, rather than just building infrastructure?

Edward Vaizey: It is important to make it clear that the money from the TV licence fee will be used to roll out superfast broadband, but an important part of our broadband strategy-what is known as demand stimulation-is that more people take up superfast broadband. Martha Lane Fox and others are working to increase take-up of broadband.

Denis MacShane: I welcome what the Minister is saying. This matter segues into the Government's proposal for more local television, which I also welcome. There is local town TV in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and much of Europe, but very little in Britain. I urge the Government to resist the big broadcasting monoliths and vested media interests, who will not like this proposal. Can Rotherham have an early experiment with local TV, because I do not feel that I get quite the airtime that I should on the national networks? I am sure that if there were a local TV station in Rotherham, I would appear at least once a month.

Edward Vaizey: The right hon. Gentleman has given a clear signal to this House why every hon. Member should support the roll-out of local television-the flagship policy of this Department.

Football Governance

Jessica Lee: What plans he has to bring forward proposals on football governance; and if he will make a statement.

Hugh Robertson: In line with the commitment in the Government's coalition agreement, I am in discussion with the football authorities on what further steps they can take to bring about further governance reform and a greater involvement for supporters in their local clubs. I hope to set out the way forward in this area by May. I will take a close interest in the inquiry that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee is conducting on this issue.

Jessica Lee: Last year, the future of Ilkeston Town football club in my constituency of Erewash was in doubt because of difficulties. New owners were secured, and I am sure that the Minister will join me in wishing them all the best for the future. It was the efforts of local residents, who submitted a supporters' bid, that really caught the imagination locally. Will he set out in more detail what efforts the Government are making to advance this interesting policy area?

Hugh Robertson: I absolutely hear what my hon. Friend says. It was our intention to bring forward plans in the new year, but in view of the huge interest in the matter throughout the House, which was evidenced by a debate in Westminster Hall, we thought it sensible to let the Culture, Media and Sport Committee look into it first, as it had announced its intention to do so. We will consider that report before deciding what further steps to take.
	I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point about her football club and the role that supporters have played. The problem we have historically had in this country is that there are many different types of football club ownership, which makes a one-size-fits-all solution hard to get to.

Philip Hollobone: Premier league footballers are vastly overpaid, premier league clubs are hugely in debt and our national football team is, in many ways, a disgrace. Meanwhile, in the real world, non-league clubs such as Kettering Town football club are struggling to provide suitable ground facilities despite massive fan support. Does the Minister agree that football as it is in this country at the moment faces an unsustainable future unless governance issues are properly sorted out?

Hugh Robertson: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that football governance issues need attention and action, which I believe is precisely why the Select Committee has responded to the anxiety throughout the House and announced its investigation.
	If we look across all sports, it is clear that football is the worst-governed sport in this country, without a shadow of a doubt. When Labour was in government, it often made the point that the levels of corporate governance in football lagged far behind other sports, which are by no means beacons in that regard. Action is needed and the Government will take it, but we want to see the results of the Select Committee report first.

BBC Governance

Robert Halfon: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the governance arrangements for the BBC; and if he will make a statement.

Jeremy Hunt: We have made good progress in improving governance at the BBC, including the announcement made in September by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) about allowing the National Audit Office unfettered access to BBC accounts.

Robert Halfon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. When considering the governance of the BBC, will he also examine BBC impartiality? On "The Alan Davies Show" last year, BBC employees likened the Freedom Association to the British National party and its founder, the late second world war hero Norris McWhirter, to one of Mosley's brownshirts. When I wrote to the BBC I received a ridiculous letter from Mark Thompson refusing to apologise. Will my right hon. Friend demand that the BBC starts to live up to the obligation in its own charter?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree that impartiality at the BBC is paramount and that the particular comments to which my hon. Friend refers were totally inappropriate. I can understand why many people found them offensive. By way of reassurance, I say to him that in the selection process for the new chairman of the BBC Trust, which is responsible for impartiality, we have said that all candidates must show commitment to improving governance at the BBC. I hope that these issues will continue to be addressed.

Ivan Lewis: The Secretary of State and I agree about the importance of the impartiality of the BBC. With the withdrawal of Sir Howard Davies from the shortlist for the chairmanship of the BBC Trust, there is growing speculation that the favourite is now the former chairman of the Conservative party. In those circumstances, it is particularly important that the appointment process is transparent. Will the Secretary of State therefore agree that the all-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee should scrutinise the two candidates referred to him by the appointment panel before he makes a recommendation to the Prime Minister?

Jeremy Hunt: Let me reassure the shadow Secretary of State that the process is transparent and fair. If he does not like it, he and the last Labour Government should not have set it up when they established the BBC Trust.

Julian Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State, from the bottom of my heart, for what he said about the disgraceful attack on the reputation of Norris McWhirter, whom the BBC was delighted to have as one of its star celebrities for decade after decade. May I tell him that I worked with Norris McWhirter for many years in politics, and one could never find a more dedicated opponent of totalitarianism? That is hardly surprising given that at the age of 17, he volunteered for the Royal Navy and took part in one of the most successful anti-U-boat organisations in the battle of the Atlantic. It was a particular disgrace that someone-David Baddiel-who, like me, is from a Jewish background, should denounce that admirable man as a fascist or a Nazi sympathiser simply because he disagreed with him politically.

Mr Speaker: On the BBC, I call the Secretary of State.

Jeremy Hunt: I echo what I said about the importance of impartiality, and say simply to my hon. Friend that given his sustained interest in that, many people at the BBC are gutted that he did not put his name forward for the chairmanship of the BBC Trust.

BBC World Service

Jo Swinson: What recent discussions he has had on future funding of the BBC World Service.

Jeremy Hunt: We had a number of discussions on funding for the BBC both with the BBC and with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the context of licence fee discussions.

Jo Swinson: For those living in countries where free speech is threatened or non-existent, the BBC World Service provides a vital and powerful source of unbiased information. I welcomed the Foreign Secretary's reassurance back in September that the Burma operation is unlikely to face closure, but will the Secretary of State reassure the House that he is working with his Cabinet colleagues and the BBC to ensure that in countries that face significant political upheaval, that voice of independent free speech will be upheld?

Jeremy Hunt: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the outstanding beacon for freedom that the BBC World Service represents, not least given the lifeline it offered to the people of Haiti and the 3.1 million people who are reported to use it in Iran. She is absolutely right. If it is any reassurance, closure of any language service must have the written consent of the Foreign Secretary. We are confident that the BBC World Service can sustain its current plans.

Access to Culture (Young People)

Alison McGovern: What proportion of his Department's expenditure for 2010-11 supports access to culture for young people; and if he will make a statement.

Edward Vaizey: My Department invests more than £1.6 billion into our sponsored bodies and much of it is fundamentally connected to improving children's and young people's access to the fantastic culture that we enjoy in this country. We are working closely with the Department for Education on a review of music education, and will shortly announce details of a review of cultural education, to ensure that we are taking the best approach to investment in, and the delivery of, culture for young people.

Alison McGovern: Now that young people have lost their education maintenance allowance and their free theatre ticket scheme, "A night less ordinary", and that we know that there is no replacement in a good education for access to live music and theatre and other arts, what action will the Minister take in these very difficult circumstances for the cultural sector to ensure that young people, and especially those from poorer backgrounds, are not the ones who lose out?

Edward Vaizey: I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady's sentiments. I know that she used to work for Creative Partnerships and was a trustee of the South London gallery. She will know full well that almost all our cultural organisations work extremely hard to ensure access for young people to their work. We will continue to work with them and the Department for Education to ensure that that is maintained.

BSkyB

Kevin Brennan: When he expects to reach a decision on whether to refer to the Competition Commission the News Corporation bid for BSkyB.

Jeremy Hunt: I will take as much time as necessary to come to a considered decision on this very important issue.

Kevin Brennan: As a former Minister with responsibility for competition in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, I know that the Secretary of State will want seriously to consider the evidence and not to prejudge what should be done in this case-unlike his predecessor. However, does he agree that given his own very high-profile comments about Rupert Murdoch and BSkyB, it might be sensible in this case, in which justice needs to be seen to be done as well as to be done, for him to hand over the decision to someone who will be seen to be more impartial, if not actually more impartial?

Jeremy Hunt: This is not a decision about Rupert Murdoch or his business; it is a decision about whether a specific transaction will affect plurality. I am approaching that decision with total impartiality and following strict due process.

Duncan Hames: What purpose does the Secretary of State believe is served by ministerial discretion on such decisions when Parliament could instead empower the Competition Commission to instigate such investigations on its own initiative?

Jeremy Hunt: Ministerial discretion is restricted to what is reasonable and fair in the eyes of the law. The process was set up in the Enterprise Act 2002 by the previous Government. It is incredibly important that due process is followed at every stage. We will publish exactly what we have done and whom we have met at every stage of the process when I make my decision, in order for Parliament to be able to scrutinise the process and ensure that it has been totally fair and impartial.

Ivan Lewis: I am sure that the Secretary of State would accept that the Government's handling of this quasi-judicial responsibility has been nothing short of a constitutional disgrace. The Business Secretary was stripped of his responsibilities because he
	"declared war on Mr Murdoch",
	the Culture Secretary is on record as saying that he sees no problem with this particular deal, and the Prime Minister has now been found tucking into turkey in the middle of the process with the chief executive of News International. What breathtaking arrogance and contempt for their constitutional responsibilities!
	Will the Secretary of State now tell the whole House whether he intends to meet any of the concerned parties before making a decision on this referral? Will he also release the Ofcom report-he has the ability to do so-in advance of making his decision, so that the House can be reassured that his judgment is impartial?

Jeremy Hunt: I remind the shadow Culture Secretary that when the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) made the decision on the Sky ITV purchase he published the Ofcom report when he announced his decision, so I am doing nothing different to what he did. On the issue of impartiality, I say this:
	"Rupert Murdoch"-
	has
	"been a force for good in improving the quality of broadcasting for British consumers".
	Those are not my words, but those of the shadow Culture Secretary. I wish that he would stop sucking up to the Murdochs.

Topical Questions

Julian Smith: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: I am pleased to announce that we have appointed three new non-executive directors to the Department's board. They are David Verey, who is the chairman of the Art Fund and former chairman of the Tate; Peter Bazalgette, who is the former chairman of Endemol; and Lord Coe, who is attending on an ex-officio basis as chairman of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Julian Smith: Many young people across north Yorkshire will be hoping to get tickets for the Olympics when they become available next month. How can we ensure that travel costs do not become a limitation for young people coming from the regions and hoping to take advantage of this fantastic event?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to say that we want the Olympics to be something that is exciting for everyone throughout the whole country. On the specific costs of travelling to London, I suggest that he talks to his rail company to see whether it can help out. We wish him every success, and will give him every support we can, in that process.

Gloria De Piero: The Labour mayor of Lewisham says that he did not seek election to close down libraries, but that is the scale of the cuts. In Milton Keynes, a Liberal Democrat councillor says that the financial challenge means that money will be taken out of the library service. My local council in Nottinghamshire, run by the Conservatives, tells me that, to reduce expenditure, 28 libraries will reduce their opening hours. So councils of all colours do not want to reduce library provision, but the Government are forcing them to do so. What will Ministers do about it?

Edward Vaizey: I remind the hon. Lady that one of the reasons why councils have reduced funding is the economic mess that her party left this country in; that is why they are having to make the tough decisions that they are having to make. We are not standing by: I have contacted all local authority to remind them of their statutory duty and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council continues to work closely with a number of authorities on their proposals for the future of their library services.

Aidan Burley: A campaign group in my constituency has recently submitted an expression of interest in applying for an FM licence to run the first community radio station covering the whole area, to be called Chase FM. Can the Minister assure me that part of the community radio fund will still be available for new licence applications such as that one, and will he join me in wishing Chase FM all the best with its application?

Edward Vaizey: We are strong supporters of community radio. We have set aside almost £500,000 this financial year for it, and that funding will continue for the rest of this Parliament. Ofcom is considering whether there should be a third round of community radio licences and I will keep my hon. Friend informed.

Jim Cunningham: I noticed earlier that the Minister never really answered the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), so I will put it again. What assessment has the Minister made of the effect of the withdrawal of the education maintenance allowance on the participation by young people in the arts and the theatre?

Edward Vaizey: As I said in answer to an earlier question, several arts organisations provide fantastic opportunities for young people to access culture and education, and we will conduct a review of cultural education in the next few months which we hope will come up with recommendations that will enhance it.
	May I take this opportunity to wish Chase FM the greatest of luck in applying for a community radio licence?

Anne-Marie Morris: Given the increasing reliance of businesses on the internet and the Government's commitment to economic growth, will the Minister assure me that he will favourably consider including rural Devon, which has some of the poorest internet coverage in the country, in the second phase of the broadband pilot scheme?

Edward Vaizey: As I said earlier, we hope to set up a second round of pilots for broadband roll-out, for which we have set aside £50 million, but obviously that process is being run by Broadband Delivery UK, and it would be wrong for Ministers to favour one area above another.

Ian Austin: We would obviously like to associate ourselves with the Minister's congratulations earlier to the England cricket team. However, he also claimed that funding for grass-roots sport will be higher at the end of the Parliament than it was at the beginning. How can that be the case, when local teams and clubs up and down the country are on the front line of cuts and facing higher fees and charges to hire pitches, sports halls and pools, and when local sports co-ordinators and county sports partnerships are sacking staff, all as a result of the cuts to local government spending imposed by his Government? What assessment has he made of the impact that local government finance will have on grass-roots sport, and what discussions has he had with his colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government?

Hugh Robertson: I gave the answer I did because, according to the figures and projections for Exchequer and lottery funding to Sport England, the latter received £249 million this year and will receive £284 million by the end of the Parliament. That is a 14% increase by anybody's maths. On local authorities, we are looking at the matter closely, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in trying to convince and reassure local authorities that they should not be closing sport and leisure facilities. There is no reason for them to do that-it is a choice they have to make-and I would encourage all of them to continue to build on the considerable investment that the Government are making in sport, both through UK Sport, Sport England and the London-

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the Minister.

Greg Mulholland: I am delighted that the Government have committed to backing the 2013 rugby league world cup, but there remains a concern that with the abolition of regional development agencies some significant funding from those sources will no longer be available. Will the Minister reaffirm the Government's commitment and perhaps update the House on discussions with the Rugby Football League about ensuring that this important tournament is a big success?

Hugh Robertson: Absolutely. I can confirm the answer that I gave on this subject during, I think, the previous Culture, Media and Sport questions or the ones before that: I have made it absolutely clear that all world cups, in whatever sport, should be treated on exactly the same basis, and I have written to the chief executive of the RFL to confirm that. I am aware that there is an issue, however, because the regional development agency has withdrawn its offer of funding. Those involved are trying to work through that, and I will do everything that I can to help.

Gemma Doyle: My constituency is in central Scotland, and is neither rural nor isolated, but it does suffer from problems with broadband coverage. At the moment, it is falling between the cracks of action-or rather inaction-between what industry is doing and what the Government are doing. What will the Government do to help constituencies such as mine, and will West Dunbartonshire be considered as one of the pilot programmes to be announced later this year?

Edward Vaizey: I will say again that we have set aside £530 million for broadband. We are starting with four pilots in the next few months, and will be announcing another four pilots-or possibly even more-in May 2011. We continue to engage through Broadband Delivery UK with regions across the United Kingdom, and I would urge the hon. Lady to work with her local councillors and BDUK.

Jake Berry: Areas served by relay transmitters, such as Darwen, Whitewell, Newchurch, Bacup and Whitworth, receive about 15 Freeview channels, while those served by a main transmitter receive up to 40. Before switchover is complete, will the Minister confirm whether he has any plans to deal with this digital deprivation?

Edward Vaizey: I understand my hon. Friend's concern on behalf of his constituents, and it is good that he has raised it. There has never been universal television coverage. About 90% of television viewers get the full range of Freeview channels, and about 98.5% get the basic 15. I will be happy to have discussions with him. This is a commercial decision for the operators, but it is worth having a dialogue.

Tristram Hunt: Among the great cultural gems of this country are the regional museums of England, such as the People's History museum in Manchester, so why is this most philistine of Governments withdrawing funding from these great museums, given that they know that local authorities cannot pick up the tab?

Edward Vaizey: I object to the Government being described as a philistine Government, particularly by one of the country's leading television historians. He and I are working extremely closely on preserving the Wedgwood collections, and I hope he is not thinking, "Philistine, philistine" as we sit down for our discussions. Funding is tight because his philistine Government bankrupted the country.

Alan Beith: Is the Tourism Minister aware that because One North East did all its tourism promotion work in-house it fell foul of the Government's advertising ban, and that there is currently no promotion of the fantastic attractions of Northumberland? Will he work to ensure that a business-led alternative can get into place quickly?

John Penrose: I am aware of the problem; indeed, my right hon. Friend and I had a conversation about it in the Lobby yesterday evening. There are isolated examples of such issues in different parts of the country, depending on what has been happening with RDAs and their wind-down. As we discussed last night, I would urge him to speak to the transition team at VisitEngland and, if necessary, its chief executive, James Berresford. VisitEngland has a team specifically set up to help midwife the change from the old regime to the new, but if my right hon. Friend has any problems, he should let me know.

Alison McGovern: My constituents in Wirral currently enjoy the regional television that exists. Although we offer a cautious welcome to the Secretary of State's proposals for local television, there is a fear about what might happen to that which we already enjoy. Can he say more about how he will protect the quality of local television services?

Jeremy Hunt: Let me reassure the hon. Lady that we are interested in this issue because we want local television to be more local and better than it is. One of the problems with regional television at the moment is that the footprint is so large that it is difficult to put out programming and news that have the impact that real local television has. I have every confidence that what we announced yesterday will make a huge difference to her constituents in the Wirral.

Kevan Jones: The Minister might consider the failure of north-east tourism to be able to promote itself-a failure caused by the cuts that this Government have imposed-to be an isolated problem, but it is a real problem in the north-east. If he takes the trouble to visit the north-east, I am sure that an array of critics in the north-east tourism industry, including the National Trust, will make their feelings well known to him.

John Penrose: As I hope I have made clear, I am aware of the issues. I would be delighted to come to visit some of the north-east's impressive tourism attractions, including such places as Holy island and many others. I would love to do that in due course, but if the hon. Gentleman has specific examples of problems in his area, I would repeat what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) earlier, which is that there is a team specifically set up at VisitEngland to cope with precisely those issues.

Ian Lavery: The Government claim that the Olympic games would benefit the whole of the UK. Does the Minister agree that the 0.17% of contracts awarded to firms in the north-east is absolutely disgraceful and another kick in the teeth for the region?

Hugh Robertson: No, I would not, because all such contracts have to be competed for on a commercial basis, as the hon. Gentleman needs to be aware, and there are strict rules that govern that. He is perfectly well aware that we cannot simply award contracts to one part of the country because it has not had enough before. What firms in those parts of the country should be doing is putting in competitive contracts because, as we heard in previous answers, many of those contracts have been awarded to British firms.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked-

IPSA (Liaison Group)

Simon Hart: What progress has been made on the creation of a liaison group between hon. Members and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

George Young: My hon. Friend will be aware of your statement on this matter yesterday, Mr Speaker. I welcome the initiative, and I understand that the liaison group will meet soon.

Simon Hart: At present, IPSA costs the taxpayer more than its predecessor and employs one member of staff for every nine Members of Parliament. Its bureaucracy is so complicated that it takes staff roughly 1,700 calls a week to unravel its complexities. Does the Leader of the House consider that to be progress, and could he do the taxpayer a great service by offering assistance in haste to the parliamentary standards-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think we have got the gist of it, but the hon. Gentleman's question was too long.

George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend: there are opportunities to drive down the costs, and not just for IPSA, but for Members and their staff who have to operate the system. The existing regime was set up to a challenging timetable, and IPSA is the first to recognise that improvements can be made. I hope that my hon. Friend will respond to the review that is under way and put forward suggestions for reducing the costs on both sides of the equation.

Kevan Jones: Does the Leader of the House agree that the comments made over Christmas by a member of the IPSA board-comments that were ill-informed and insulting to many Members of Parliament-were not helpful in building a positive relationship between this House and IPSA? Could he put those comments on the agenda for the liaison group's first meeting?

George Young: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those comments were not helpful. I hope that one of the benefits of setting up the liaison group will be that we will now have a proper forum for consultation between IPSA and the House, and that there will be no need to resort to public acrimony in the newspapers. I hope that we will be able to have a sensible discussion and iron out some of the real difficulties that exist, without experiencing the kind of incidents to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred.

Nicky Morgan: Earlier this week, because IPSA had failed to tell me that it had put in place a direct payment to my landlord of my London rent, as I had requested, I also paid her for my January rent. This makes for one very happy landlord and one less happy bank manager. Does my right hon. Friend agree that better communication between IPSA and MPs is vital if the expenses system is to operate in a fair and efficient way?

George Young: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has had to dig into her own resources to pay her landlady twice. One of the initiatives that I and other Members are anxious to drive forward is the removal of the need for payments to go in and out of MPs' bank accounts. If we can move more towards direct payments by IPSA or the use of a credit card, the sort of misunderstanding that has just occurred could be avoided.

Helen Jones: I declare an interest, as a member of the new liaison group. The House has made it clear that IPSA must reform to provide a simpler, cheaper and non-discriminatory expenses system, and the Prime Minister has told it that it must "get a grip". What assurances has the Leader of the House had from IPSA that advice from the new liaison group will be take seriously in shaping that reform? Can he also tell us what tests the Government will apply in deciding whether IPSA has reformed itself sufficiently or whether further action needs to be taken?

George Young: I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady will be serving on the liaison group; she will make a really positive contribution to its proceedings. IPSA will take the new body seriously, because it was set up at IPSA's suggestion. On her last point, it will not be for the Government to decide whether IPSA has responded to the challenges that she has outlined; it will be a matter for the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked-

Savings Programme

Hugh Bayley: What assessment the House of Commons Commission has made of the effects of its savings programme on the ability of Committees of the House to scrutinise the work of the Executive.

John Thurso: A guiding principle of the savings programme, as agreed by the Commission and the Finance and Services Committee, is that it must not damage the ability of the House to scrutinise the Executive. The Commission is confident that the savings being made in 2011-12 will adhere to that principle and enable Committees of the House to continue to fulfil their vital scrutiny role, and this is a matter that we will keep a close eye on.

Hugh Bayley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role. I understand why the House is making savings, but we would not find it acceptable if budget cuts prevented a quarter of our Members from travelling to Westminster to attend debates or Committees. A few of our Select Committees exist specifically to scrutinise the impact and effectiveness of Government policies and expenditure abroad. Does the House of Commons Commission accept that it is sometimes essential for those Committees to travel to other countries, and that, when they do so, none of their members should be excluded from their meetings?

John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman is a noted member of the International Development Committee. There will be £800,000 for Select Committee travel in 2011-12. That is a substantial sum of money at a time of financial stringency, and the Commission believes that it will be sufficient for those occasions on which an overseas visit makes an essential contribution to an inquiry. The Committees that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned will have a clear claim to be making essential inquiries, but the way in which the budget is used is ultimately a matter for the Liaison Committee.

Tom Watson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post as well; he will do a good job. Is he aware that younger, and-dare I say it?-more progressive Members of the House scrutinise the Executive using social media such as Facebook and Twitter? Twitter is free. Will he give us an unequivocal commitment that Members should be able to use Twitter to hold the Government to account?

John Thurso: I deeply regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that I am a dinosaur when it comes to the Twittery thing; I really have not a clue how it works. May I discuss the matter with him later to find out exactly what he is talking about?

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked-

Petitions

Jake Berry: What recent progress he has made on the Government's plans to link petitions to debates in the House.

Richard Ottaway: What recent progress he has made on the Government's plans to link petitions to debates in the House.

Henry Smith: What recent progress he has made on the Government's plans to link petitions to debates in the House.

David Heath: As the Leader of the House has said, the Government will move the online petition system to the Directgov portal soon-certainly before the summer. Officials are now working on an effective verification system to ensure that petitions become a useful tool for engaging with the Government, in contrast to the gimmicky approach of the previous Government's No. 10 petition site. My briefing notes say that, at this point, I should use the pseudo-word "clicktivism", a neologism as ugly as it is unintelligible. I have no intention of associating myself with it.

Jake Berry: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He is, I know, aware that the rail line between Manchester and Clitheroe is in desperate need of improvement. If the requisite number of signatures were collected by a "clicktivism" or anything else, could it be debated in this House and, if so, what impact does he think it would have on Government policy?

David Heath: That is exactly the sort of issue that might well commend itself for a debate via the petition system. I commend my hon. Friend for his vigorous campaigning on the issue. Rather than wait for that to happen, he might like to pursue the option of having an Adjournment debate in order to debate the matter further.

Richard Ottaway: Can the Minister say what a "direct portal" is? As I understand it, petitions were made to No. 10, so I hope he is going to confirm that petitions will now go to the House of Commons and that the House of Commons will debate petitions to it, not to No. 10.

David Heath: Well, the petitions will be to the House of Commons, but the Government's site will be used simply because it is there. The "Directgov" site is the common site for connexions via the internet to Government. I believe that the address is www.direct.gov.uk, so the hon. Gentleman might like to look at it and see whether it is a sensible portal to use-if he accepts the word "portal" at all.

Henry Smith: What will be the role of the Backbench Business Committee in government e-petitions?

David Heath: The Committee itself made it clear in its first special report that in determining what business should be taken, it would consider
	"public petitions recently submitted to the House and petitions published on the Downing Street website-until such time as a system for electronic petitions to the House is implemented".
	We very much welcome the Committee's continued interest in e-petitions as a source of debate, and we will work with it and with the Procedure Committee in making sure that we have a proper procedure for linking petitions to Parliament.

Thomas Docherty: I am very surprised that the Deputy Leader of the House has not followed the Scottish Parliament system for public petitions, given that that has been widely praised both by his predecessor and by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will he briefly outline why there is such a divergence between the 10-year-plus Scottish Parliament system and this system?

David Heath: I do not think that there is a huge divergence. We looked at the Scottish system and at whether it was applicable. The Procedure Committee, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has also looked at the issue. We have the Directgov site in place, and we are keen for people to be able to put petitions before the House at the earliest opportunity-and this provides the earliest opportunity. As I said, I hope we can get it up and running before the summer. If the Procedure Committee has further views on how the system could be changed in the future, we would certainly be open to its suggestions.

Pre-Adjournment Debate

David Amess: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the format of the pre-Adjournment debate held on 21 December 2010.

David Heath: May I say how much I welcome the decision of the Backbench Business Committee to retain the pre-recess Adjournment debate, which is a venerable institution, as indeed are the contributions of the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) to it, as they always provide a tour d'horizon of his constituency? We are always very pleased to know what is going on in Southend West.

David Amess: I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee and its excellent Chairman on their innovative work and I am delighted that all those who wanted to speak in that Adjournment debate were called, but does the Minister have any feel for whether the new arrangements have achieved the objectives on ministerial responses?

David Heath: I think that ministerial responses-I set aside my own efforts-were better than usual, simply because they were informed by a pre-knowledge of the topics that Members intended to raise.
	Forty-five Members participated in the debate on 21 December 2010, compared with 23 in 2009 and 25 in 2008, and I believe that according to most measures that must be considered a success.

Natascha Engel: Not only did 45 Members speak, but every Member who wanted to speak was able to do so. The fact that six Ministers responded from the Dispatch Box made the occasion very popular with Back Benchers, and also ensured that they were much more able to hold the Government to account. The debate was in its usual slot, but does the Deputy Leader of the House welcome the fact that the Backbench Business Committee has done some innovating of its own?

David Heath: I think it is terrific that the Backbench Business Committee is prepared to consider new ways of doing things in order to establish whether we can improve the procedures of the House, and I can only congratulate it on doing so. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Lady for ensuring that I had sufficient time in which to address, at least briefly, the points raised in the debate.
	I know-my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will announce it later-that the hon. Lady's Committee has decided that there is scope for a debate on parliamentary reform, and I think that that too is extremely useful. We will work closely with the Committee in trying to do things better in future, and I hope that the hon. Lady will continue her good work.

Philip Hollobone: There is no reason why the end-of-term Adjournment debate need take place only at the end of term. It could take place on other occasions in the parliamentary timetable as well. Would the Deputy Leader of the House welcome that?

David Heath: I always welcome opportunities for Back Benchers to have their say on matters that concern them and their constituents, and I am always happy to make myself available to respond to such debates. I am sure that my ministerial colleagues would say the same.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked-

Procedural Data Programme

Jo Swinson: What progress the procedural data programme has made on the provision in electronic form to the Official Report of the text of answers to parliamentary questions.

John Thurso: On 16 December, the procedural data programme board agreed to the project initiation document for a pilot project on electronic delivery of answers. That pilot is due to end in March 2011. The project team will produce a report recommending next steps, which the board will consider in May.

Jo Swinson: I was astonished to learn of the inefficient process by which-in the 21st century-written answers are published in  Hansard. They are typed in the Department and delivered by hand to the House as a print-out, at which point the  Hansard reporters have to type them again. I am glad that the Commission is considering changing the process, but may I urge it to do so quickly, and to recognise that short-term costs such as the cost of the necessary software will be outweighed by long-term savings in staff time?

John Thurso: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her approval of the steps that the Commission is taking. The process is somewhat complicated, not least because no two Departments use exactly the same technology when preparing answers, and a large amount of business analysis must be conducted to produce a sufficiently detailed understanding of their working practices. However, resource expenditure of £34,970 has been invested in the project, and we will work as expeditiously as possible to arrive at a resolution.

Robert Halfon: Does my hon. Friend agree that we would save a huge amount of money if written answers and early-day motions were published electronically rather than being printed?

John Thurso: A key part of the savings programme as a whole is considering all the instances in which the use of electronic media would improve the service to Members and reduce costs, while also having the environmental benefit of reducing the use of paper. The Commission certainly intends to consider those matters.

Counter-Terrorism

Edward Balls: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary what the Government's policy is on 28-day pre-charge detention.

Damian Green: The Home Secretary is in Budapest at an informal meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, so I will be responding on her behalf. As the Home Secretary, Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have made clear, the first duty of any Government is to protect the British public and we will not do anything that risks our security. The arrests of individuals for terrorism-related offences before Christmas, the cargo bomb plot in October and the bombings in Stockholm in December have all demonstrated that the threat from international terrorism remains a serious one.
	On 13 July last year, the Home Secretary announced that she was renewing the current order for 28-day pre-charge detention for six months, while the powers were considered as part of a wider review of counter-terrorism powers. As the Home Secretary will be giving a full statement to the House on Wednesday on the outcome of that review, it would be wrong of me to pre-empt her statement by giving details of the review today.
	This Government are clear that the power to detain terrorist suspects for up to 28 days' detention before they were charged or released was meant to be an exceptional power-that was always Parliament's intention. But under the last Government, it became the norm, with the renewal of 28 days repeatedly brought before the House, despite the power rarely being used. Since July 2007, no one has been held for longer than 14 days, despite the many terrorists arrested since then. That is a testament to the efforts of our prosecutors, our police and our intelligence agencies.
	As I said, the Home Secretary will, next Wednesday, announce to the House the findings from the wider review of counter-terrorism and security powers. She will set out the detailed considerations of the Government in determining whether the current regime of 28 days should be renewed and, if not, what should be put in its place. In the interim, I can announce that the Government will not be seeking to extend the order allowing the maximum 28-day limit and, accordingly, the current order will lapse on 25 January and the maximum limit of pre-charge detention will, from that time, revert to 14 days. We are clear that 14 days should be the norm and that the law should reflect that. However, we will place draft emergency legislation in the House Library to extend the maximum period to 28 days to prepare for the very exceptional circumstances when a longer period may be required. If Parliament approved, the maximum period of pre-charge detention could be extended by that method.
	In the Government's announcement on the wider review, the Home Secretary will set out what contingency measures should be introduced in order to ensure that our ability to bring terrorists to justice is as effective as possible. This country continues to face a real and serious threat from terrorism. That threat is unlikely to diminish any time soon. The Government are clear that we need appropriate powers to deal with that threat but that those powers must not interfere with the hard-won civil liberties of the British people. There is a difficult balance to be struck between protecting our security and defending our civil liberties. The outcome of our counter-terrorism powers review will strike that balance, and it is this Government's sincere hope that it will form the basis of a lasting political consensus across the House on this fundamentally important issue.

Edward Balls: We are in the unusual constitutional position of having the Government make an announcement in response to an urgent question on a vital matter of national security. I shall return to that issue at the end of my comments.
	First, I agree with the Minister that keeping the public safe and striking the right balance between security and the protection of liberties is a vital task facing any Government. That is why when I became Home Secretary -[Interruption.] When I became shadow Home Secretary, I told the Home Secretary that it was our intention, as a responsible Opposition, to support the Government on issues of national security and on the review of counter-terrorism powers. That was on the basis that decisions were made on the basis of evidence and were in the national interest, and that there was an orderly process.
	That is still our intention, but this process has not been orderly-it has been a complete shambles. I am not referring only to the way in which this review has been delayed and delayed-it was first promised, last July, to be completed by the end of last summer. Nor am I referring only to the countless and very detailed leaks and briefings to the BBC on the outcome of the review. Such leaks have continued over the weekend-following my point of order of eight days ago-including to  The Sun on the funding of surveillance. I have to say that this is no way to make announcements on vital issues of national security.
	There is a third reason, which is the reason for this urgent question today. When the Home Secretary announced her review in July, she extended 28 days pre-charge detention for a further six months until 24 January and she said to the House:
	"After that, it will be up to me as Home Secretary to come back to the House to ask for a further extension, to let the limit fall to 14 days, or to present new proposals that reduce the limit but introduce contingency arrangements in extreme circumstances."-[ Official Report, 14 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 1007.]
	The Home Secretary has not come back to the House. I said that we would support a change on the basis of the evidence. There has been no evidence. There are no details of contingency arrangements. We are told that there will be a statement on Wednesday, but the policy on 28 days collapses by default on Monday.
	In the absence of the Home Secretary, will the Minister tell the House what will happen on Monday if a terror suspect is detained? What will be the period of detention? Do the police and security services agree that this power is now not needed? Is that in the evidence in the as yet unpublished review? Do the Government really intend to let this happen by default, with no statement, no announcement and no evidence presented to the House? I must say that this is a deeply arrogant way for the Government to treat this House. It is a shambolic way to make policy on vital issues of national security.
	Should not the Minister go away, come back this afternoon to make a proper statement, publish the evidence and allow right hon. and hon. Members to ask the questions that should be asked, rather than allowing the Government to treat them with such contempt?

Damian Green: I am sorry that I shot the shadow Home Secretary's fox before he stood up with what was clearly a pre-written statement that did not bother with anything I actually announced- [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Gentleman asked a question; I gave a substantive answer. He seems to object to that. I have come to the House of Commons to give a substantive answer to a question. I can understand why the noisy and excited Opposition Front Benchers are confused by this process, because under their Government there was never any substantive answer to an urgent question. It clearly came as a huge shock to the shadow Home Secretary that he actually had an answer, because it was clear from the rest of what he said that he had not listened to any of it.
	The right hon. Gentleman's substantive point was that he wanted the counter-terrorism powers review earlier. I think that in his more serious moments he might recognise that, rather than rush a review of something as important as counter-terrorism powers, it is important to get it right. In this area of vital national interest and the security of our country, the Government will not be driven, as his Government too often were, by the media agenda. We will take the right amount of time and get it right.
	The right hon. Gentleman's other point was about process. He had the cheek to talk about process in relation to counter-terrorism powers. I shall not take any lectures on process from the party that tried to use pre-charge detention as a political tool, that tried to impose 90 days detention, then 60 days, then 42 days-a party that, when that proposal was turned down by the House of Lords, finally and grudgingly settled for 28 days. The shambles of counter-terrorism powers was precisely illustrated by the disasters of the previous Government.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the timing of when he will get the evidence. If he ever paid any attention to the proceedings of this House, he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announce last week that the Home Secretary would make the statement that I have just talked about next week. I announced earlier that the statement would be made on Wednesday, but there is an underlying serious point that the House needs to address, which is the importance of balancing the security of the British people with the need to maintain our civil liberties. We need no lectures on that from the right hon. Gentleman. One of the most damaging failures of the Government in which he was a leading figure was an inability to strike that balance between security and civil liberties. At every turn, the Labour Government trampled on civil liberties, not just with their attempt to impose 90 days detention but with their databases on children and their ID card scheme. No amount of sanctimonious bluster from the Labour party can disguise their shocking record on civil liberties and security. This Government will repair their mistakes in that area.
	My final thought for the right hon. Gentleman is that he said in his blog last week:
	"I want to support the Home Secretary in reaching a new consensus about counter-terrorism policy",
	I am afraid that nothing he has said today has illustrated that what he claimed to think last week is what he actually thinks this week. He should go away and think hard about the serious nature of his job.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. There is understandably intense interest in this subject, but there is also pressure on time with the business statement to follow and thereafter two important and well-subscribed debates to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. Brevity from those on the Back Bench and Front alike is, on this occasion, not just desirable but essential.

Tom Brake: Does the Minister agree that the coalition's approach to counter-terrorism judiciously balances the country's security needs with the defence of our precious civil liberties in contrast with the Opposition's approach, which relied on draconian and counter-productive counter-terrorism measures that were highly damaging to fundamental British rights and were ineffective from a security perspective?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is exactly right. We need to strike a new and better balance, not just in the interests of civil liberties but in the interests of security. The wider the co-operation we have with the police and security services, the more secure we will all be. The better balance we are now striking is a significant step forward in achieving that.

David Blunkett: I was the Home Secretary who increased the time from seven days to 14, not 28, and I think there is good reason for a balanced and sensible approach. But why are we able to have just one announcement on one part of the review without evidence today instead of the total review being announced? Do we have to wait until next Wednesday simply because the Home Secretary happens to be at an informal meeting in Budapest as part of her duties within the European Union? What is the difference between today and next Wednesday?

Damian Green: The right hon. Gentleman rather makes my point. I repeat that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said last week that the Home Secretary would make a statement next week, and I am now able to reveal that it will be next Wednesday, so he asks the correct question: why are we doing this now? We are doing it now because the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) asked an urgent question and I have shocked him by giving a substantive answer. I make no apology for that.

Julian Lewis: Can my hon. Friend explain why this welcome announcement appeared prematurely in so many media outlets at the same time? We always criticised that when we were in opposition and I would have hoped we would take firm action against leaks now that we are in government.

Damian Green: I have no idea where that information came from. I can only say that nothing to do with any of this has ever come out from me or my office.

David Winnick: It is unfortunate if the House of Commons is not told the position before the media and I fully endorse what the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) just said. Will the Minister accept that it is a welcome step that the 28 days is being reduced to 14 days, because 28-day detention was never meant to be permanent? As for party polemics, the 90-day limit was defeated as a result of Labour Members. One thing I should like to know is why, if we are to reduce the length to 14 days, the Home Secretary will have reserve powers? It should be 14 days without any particular powers being given to the Home Secretary that would not have the authority of the House of Commons.

Damian Green: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and for his long and distinguished history on the Home Affairs Committee of fighting for civil liberties. As he knows, he and I have often agreed on these matters, and I am glad to make an announcement of this sort today. He makes a perfectly reasonable point about the reserve powers. I should emphasise that it will be a draft Bill, only to be used in emergency circumstances, which the House would have to approve at the time. It is not a question of in any way leaving 28 days on the statute book. On the issue of leaks, I will certainly take lectures from the hon. Gentleman. I do find it just a tad hypocritical to hear those on the Labour Front Bench and new Labour apparatchiks- [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I can deal with these matters. First of all, the reply was a bit on the long side. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the word "hypocritical", please.

Damian Green: I of course withdraw the word "hypocritical", and replace it with "surprising".

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful.

Bernard Jenkin: I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has been able to give information to the House today, perfectly properly provoked by an urgent question from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. May we all reflect on the fact that the timing of these matters has reflected the extraordinary complexity and difficulty of dealing with these matters, and one might take the criticisms from the Opposition Front Bench a bit more seriously if they had less of a party political flavour about them?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend makes a very wise point. I am still not entirely clear whether those on the Opposition Front Bench support this, because the shadow Home Secretary neglected to say that.

Keith Vaz: There may be support for the substance of what the Minister has said today, but what concerns the House is the fact that we have had to wait for an urgent question to be asked before being given this information. It is unsatisfactory. The Minister for Security was clear to the Select Committee when she appeared before us last December that Parliament would be told first about these matters and that it would not appear in the newspapers. Is not the best course of action to move the statement from Wednesday to Monday, when the order lapses, so that Parliament can question the Home Secretary on these matters? That is a way to resolve this rather unfortunate state of affairs.

Damian Green: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say several times that the statement has long been planned for next week, and it was announced to the House that it would be made then. With regard to the deadline being Monday, it is entirely reasonable that the law should revert to what it was. It was a temporary emergency arrangement for six months, which would lapse on Monday anyway. To try to equate that with the wider counter-terrorism review is not quite right. As I have said repeatedly, the Home Secretary has always planned to come to the House to talk about the very important wider counter-terrorism review. Indeed, the House was given unusually long notice of when she would appear, so it has been kept entirely in the loop on this.

Julian Huppert: I thank the Minister for his helpful statement on the end of 28-day detention without charge. Can he assure me that the statement will have a focus on surveillance with an aim to prosecution, rather than punishment without trial?

Damian Green: The statement will have as its root the security of the British people. As I have said, it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the Home Secretary's statement on Wednesday, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government, unlike the previous Government, take very seriously the civil liberties part of the balance.

David Hanson: When I moved the motion for 28-day detention as the Minister with responsibility for counter-terrorism in the last Parliament, the Conservative party did not oppose it. After the election, it proposed a six-month period for a review, pending evidence. In order for Ministers to be able to account to the House, when will that evidence be presented, so that we can be assured that 28 days will not put at risk the people of Britain?

Damian Green: As I have said on many occasions, the Home Secretary will make a statement on Wednesday. The right hon. Gentleman can ask her questions about it then.

Harriett Baldwin: I welcome the news that we will have the results of the review on Wednesday. Will it also include results of the review into extradition powers, and in particular the European arrest warrant?

Damian Green: As my hon. Friend knows, there are reviews on a number of matters. She tempts me down the path of pre-empting what the Home Secretary will say on Wednesday, but it would be sensible for me to continue to resist that temptation.

Pete Wishart: Will the Minister promise me that he will take absolutely no lessons from 90-day Labour when it comes to detention; a Labour Government who perhaps had the worst possible record of any modern European Government when it comes to civil liberties? I, too, welcome what he says about 28 days, but will he say a little more today about what he means by these reserve powers?

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Not only is it surprising that Labour Members are so worried about leaks; it is equally surprising that they can bring themselves to talk about civil liberties given their shambolic and dreadful record on that issue. That is precisely why the reserve powers that we propose will be in the form of a draft Bill, so that nothing can be done without the full consent of Parliament-even in the most dire emergency, which we can all imagine happening-if it is thought that we need to revert to a longer period of pre-charge detention. It will be for Parliament to decide, and that is absolutely the right way to proceed.

Dominic Raab: I welcome the statement and the fact that the trajectory of pre-charge detention under this Government is going down, not up, as it did under the last Government. We will have wait and see what the legislation says and look at the detail, but can my hon. Friend confirm one point in relation to evidence? A lot of evidence is already in the public domain in the form of the Home Office statistical bulletins, which show that in more than four years we have never needed 28-day pre-charge detention. Will he confirm that, and also that he has not seen any countervailing evidence that contradicts that?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend, who is a considerable expert on these matters, is of course right. No one has been detained for more than 14 days since July 2007, despite the many terrorist outrages that we have regrettably seen since then. To put the House fully in the picture, to date, 11 individuals have been held for more than 14 days pre-charge, six of whom were held for the maximum 28 days, three of whom were charged and three were released without charge. Again, for the those on the Opposition Front Bench to talk about evidence when they tried to foist 90 days on the House without any evidence at all was completely disrespectful.

Thomas Docherty: The Minister's claims would have more credibility if it were not for the whoops and tweets coming from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches. Can he not accept that this will be seen in the country as a shabby political deal to make up for their failure in the Oldham by-election and a desperate attempt to hold the coalition together rather than doing what is best for national security?

Damian Green: That is a new low. It will be seen in the country as a significant step forward to achieving a proper balance between security and civil liberties, which is the responsibility of any sensible Government.

Edward Leigh: All the pressure on this comes from the civil liberties lobby. May I urge my hon. Friend to put the safety of the British people first? I suspect that most people in London, if it were a choice between their daughters being blown up on a London tube or a terrorist who hates everything we stand for spending 28 days in relative comfort before being charged, would choose the latter. So act on the evidence and put the safety of the people first.

Damian Green: As I said in my statement, the first duty of any Government is the security of the people, but that has to be balanced against the wider civil liberties that my hon. Friend and I both hold dear. What we are achieving is the proper balance. What was in place before was unbalanced and, as I just said in answer to our hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), it was not contributing to extra safety against terrorism, but was potentially a power in the hands of the state that could have been abused. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) will not want the state to have powers that it could potentially abuse.

Tom Watson: I have a hunch that both sides of the House could have united on a position around the reduction of pre-trial detention. But given that the Minister has just said that the security threat is such that the House should retain some form of emergency powers, is it not reasonable to ask that the Home Secretary should have come and put the evidence for that to the House? Can the Minister confirm that it was the intention of his Department to make this announcement by written ministerial statement on Monday, which would not have allowed any debate?

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point about the reserve powers. The significant change is that instead of having something on the statute book to be used without any parliamentary scrutiny, we propose that Parliament should be able to act quickly, because we can imagine circumstances in which quick action is needed, while not leaving these onerous and draconian powers on the statute book. That seems to be a significant step forward towards proper balance and to giving Parliament more power over the process, which I am sure that he would welcome.

Charlie Elphicke: Is not proper border control an essential part of a review to deal with terrorism? It is no good building a police state at home if we allow pretty much anyone, be they friend or foe, to wander into the country. Will the Minister consider stronger measures?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Clearly, having strong and secure borders is one of the essential elements in our fight against international terrorism, and that, as he knows, is why one of the Government's priorities is to make our borders more secure. We have been making significant progress on that over the past nine months.

Kevin Brennan: Perhaps the Minister should ask the Secretary of State for Education to include the history of civil liberties in his new national curriculum so that people can be reminded that it was a Conservative Cabinet that introduced internment without trial for UK citizens.
	As the Minister knows, there were arrests and charges in Cardiff before Christmas relating to terrorist activities. Does he understand that my constituents would welcome the retention, which I think he has announced, of the possibility to extend detention to 28 days, albeit by a different method? Had that been necessary for public protection in the case to which I have referred, that would have been the right thing to do. Can he confirm that he is retaining 28-day detention as a possibility, albeit after a parliamentary procedure?

Damian Green: As I have explained, a draft Bill will be available so that Parliament can act if it needs to in a particular emergency. With regard to the arrests made before Christmas, it is important to look at what has happened. Since July 2007, no one has had to be held for more than 14 days, despite the many terrorist actions and the planned actions that, happily, have been stopped by the good actions of the police and security forces. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, as someone who considers these matters carefully, will welcome the change we are making today and that the shadow Home Secretary can do likewise at some stage.

Robert Buckland: Will the outcome of the review ensure that we go back to first principles: namely, that the task of security and intelligence should not be confused with the role of the criminal justice system, and that to conflate the two and warp the principles of criminal justice would be to fall into the sort of error that the previous Government fell into?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. It is precisely because we live in dangerous times and need to consider carefully what powers we have to fight terrorism that we should be all the more careful not to erode the principles of criminal justice and civil liberties for which this House has always stood.

Bob Blackman: I strongly support the reduction of detention without charge from 28 days to 14 days. Would the Minister confirm that there is no one currently in custody who will have to be released by Wednesday because their detention period has gone beyond 14 days?

Damian Green: It would be inappropriate for me to comment on any individual cases on the Floor of the House. I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that this is not a venue where one should discuss individual police activity.

Philip Hollobone: Although I support the reduction to 14 days, Her Majesty's Government are not treating Parliament properly on this issue. The Home Secretary will be in the House on Monday to take Home Office questions, so presumably it would be perfectly possible for her to make a statement then. The Order Paper does not list any statement on the issue for Wednesday.

Damian Green: The Order Paper for Wednesday is yet to be produced, so I am not entirely sure about the force of my hon. Friend's statement. As he says, those who are eager to question the Home Secretary will have the chance to do so on Monday anyway, so I am sure that we can return to the issue.

Henry Smith: Recently, the Leader of the Opposition defended many of the decisions made by the previous Government, of which he was a member, and now we hear from the shadow Home Secretary that he questions the decision about 28-day detention. Does the Minister agree that there are some worrying splits in Her Majesty's official Opposition on the vital issues of civil liberties and national security?

Damian Green: That may well be true, but I genuinely hope that the Opposition can bring themselves to a position in which they can balance security and civil liberties appropriately. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Home Secretary have admitted that Labour got the balance between security and civil liberties wrong. I look forward to the day when they can turn those fine words into some sort of concrete action and support the Government when we take measured and sensible steps, such as those we are taking today.

Business of the House

Hilary Benn: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

George Young: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 24 January-Continuation of Consideration in Committee of the European Union Bill (Day 2).
	Tuesday 25 January- Continuation of Consideration in Committee of the European Union Bill (Day 3).
	Wednesday 26 January-Continuation of Consideration in Committee of the European Union Bill (Day 4).
	Thursday 27 January-Second Reading of the Scotland Bill.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 31 January will include:
	Monday 31 January-Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill.
	Tuesday 1 February-Conclusion of Consideration in Committee of the European Union Bill (Day 5).
	Wednesday 2 February-Opposition Day [10th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced, followed by motion to approve European documents relating to Her Majesty's Treasury.
	Thursday 3 February-Motion relating to consumer credit regulation and debt management, followed by a general debate on reform of Legal Aid. The subjects for both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 4 February-Private Members' Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 3 February will be a debate on parliamentary reform.

Hilary Benn: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. Given what we have just heard from the Minister for Immigration, will the Leader of the House please consider bringing forward the Home Secretary's statement to Monday, as has been suggested on both sides of the House.
	The Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill really cannot come soon enough, because it has not been a very good week for the Government's NHS reforms, has it? On Monday, the Prime Minister was completely unable to explain why spending billions of pounds on turning everything upside down will actually help patients, especially when, as John Humphrys helpfully pointed out, we have seen big improvements over the past 13 years. On Tuesday, the Health Committee called the changes "disruptive", stating that they were creating "widespread uncertainty" and had taken the NHS by surprise. Could that be because the Prime Minister assured people before the election, when he was going around the country making promises as opposed to breaking them, that there would be no top-down reorganisation?
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister could not answer a very simple question from the Leader of the Opposition. Three times he was asked to confirm that waiting times for NHS patients would not rise as a result of what he is doing, and three times he failed to do so. This is very strange. If all the upheaval really is about a better deal for patients, why can the Prime Minister not make that simple promise? Is not the truth that he just knows he cannot do so, because the Health Secretary took his colleagues by surprise with his plans, and the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), has to be brought in because No. 10 got the jitters. It is the same old story: the Tories in charge of the NHS spells trouble. Is that why the Education Secretary yesterday told people from the Dispatch Box to vote Liberal Democrat?
	Moving on to another broken promise-namely, that those with the broadest shoulders would bear the greatest burden-may we have a debate on the plan to take the mobility component of disability living allowance away from people living in care homes? When the Prime Minister was asked about this last week, he said that
	"there should be a similar approach for people who are in hospital and for people who are in residential care homes."-[ Official Report, 12 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 282.]
	That reply shows exactly why the Prime Minister does not get it. The right comparison for people in care homes is not with those who are in hospital, who do not plan to live there, but with those living in their own homes, and they will continue to get help with their mobility. The Government will have to change their mind on that issue, just as they had to on school sport and are in the process of doing on prisoners voting. It is wrong, it is unfair and it hits those whose shoulders cannot be described as the broadest, and, when those people find out that their current support, which enables them to go to the shops, to church, or to see friends and family, is being taken by the Prime Minister, there will be outrage.
	Talking of which, may we also have a debate on the plans to sell off the nation's much loved woodlands and forests? The last time the Tories were in office, that is exactly what they did, and they are at it again-only this time with Liberal Democrat support. Now, that is very strange, too, because visitors to the Scottish Lib Dem website can find a page opposing the sale of forests. There is a photo on it of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, looking very stern and holding a placard that says "Save our Forests".
	In case Members are somewhat puzzled, it seems that the Chief Secretary is passionately opposed to selling off forests in Scotland but wholly in favour of the sale of forests in England. If there is one thing that is even worse than breaking one's promise, it is saying one thing in one place and the exact opposite in another-but as all of us know, the Lib Dems are world-class at that. I know that the Leader of the House will agree to my request for a debate, because he supports the procedure whereby petitions with more than 100,000 signatures trigger a debate in Parliament. So if I tell him that the petition opposing the sale of our forests has 160,000 names on it, and it does, can he tell us on what date that debate will take place?
	Topical questions have been very effective in helping to hold Ministers to account. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should extend them to those Departments that still do not have them?
	Finally, on 8 March we will celebrate the centenary of international women's day. As the Leader of the House will be aware, for a number of years there has been a debate in the House on that day, so will he join me in encouraging the Backbench Business Committee to mark that special occasion?

George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the points that he makes. He asks for a debate on the Health and Social Care Bill, and he is getting one, as I have just announced, so all the issues that he has just raised can be dealt with then. We made a commitment, which his party did not, to spend more on the NHS, and we are reforming it to put more resources into front-line services. Against that background, the prospects for those on waiting lists or those concerned about waiting times are better under this Administration than they would have been had his party been elected.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks for a debate on disability living allowance, and I recognise the concerns about that. He can have a debate about DLA: again, I announced that there would be a debate on an Opposition motion the week after next, so he can choose to debate DLA. I recognise the concern, but I hope he accepts that there are complicated issues. There are contractual obligations on certain care homes to make provision for some elements of mobility; some local authorities have requirements as part of their contracts with care homes to make provision for mobility; and people in residential homes are by and large sponsored by social services, but some are sponsored by the NHS, so different conditions apply. On the broader issue, we are consulting to see how the specific provisions on DLA will be introduced, and primary legislation will be necessary to make any changes to its mobility component.
	Under the previous regime the Forestry Commission sold many thousands of acres without any requirements at all, but if the current proposals go through there will be specific requirements on those who acquire assets from the national forest to continue to make provision for access and other concerns-requirements that do not apply at the moment. So making transfers from the Forestry Commission to other owners will not have the adverse consequences that the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
	We had an exchange on petitions that achieve a certain number of signatures, which my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House answered. If the trigger is reached and a petition hits the 100,000 mark, it becomes eligible for a debate, and its future is then decided by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who is in her place.
	I have a lot of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's point about a topical slot for those Departments with 30-minute Question Times: the Department for International Development and, I think, those for Scotland and Wales.

Thomas Docherty: And Northern Ireland.

George Young: And Northern Ireland. I take that point seriously, so I shall have discussions through the usual channels to see whether we can make some progress.
	The women's day debate is important. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Wright Committee's recommendations, he will see that the issue falls to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire and her Backbench Business Committee. He is perfectly entitled to go along at 4 pm or whenever it is to make a pitch for a debate on women's day. It will certainly have my support.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. A very large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Ordinarily, as the House knows, I seek to accommodate everybody at business questions, but that might not prove possible today, with heavy pressure on time and very well subscribed Backbench Business Committee-led debates, so I emphasise that there is a premium on single, short supplementary questions without preamble, and on the Leader of the House's characteristically brief replies.

Mark Field: Following the Leader of the House's written statement this morning, might I respectfully suggest to him that, just for once on MPs' pay and conditions, he tries to be wise before the event? Regaining the trust of the general public after the calamitous expenses scandal requires that this House abides in full by the independent reviews, come rain or shine.

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It will be for the House to decide whether to go ahead with the 1% pay increase that has come about through the machinery that was set up in 2008. The coalition Government have made their position on public sector pay very clear: we think that there should be a two-year pay freeze; that unless one earns less than £21,000 a freeze is a freeze; and that for those who earn under £21,000 the increase should amount to £250. Members earn substantially more than £21,000, and I believe that the House will want to reflect very carefully before it takes a 1% pay increase against the background of the restraint that many other people, earning much less than we do, have to face over the next two years. So I hope the House will come to a collective view when the motion is laid and agree that it is right for Members to exercise restraint for the time being.

Dave Watts: Given that the NHS reforms will boost the earnings of private sector health companies, and given that those same health companies are pouring funds into the Conservative party, may we have a debate on the conflict of interest between Ministers and those firms?

George Young: I do not believe there is that conflict of interest. The people who will benefit from the private sector's greater involvement in the NHS are the patients, because they will have access to services at a competitive price, and we will get better value for money from the NHS. The hon. Gentleman will know that under the previous Administration intermediate treatment centres were parachuted into the NHS without its being able to compete on a level playing field, so I strongly rebut his allegation.

Duncan Hames: May we have a statement on the 50 written ministerial statements made so far in 2011? During that time, I believe there have been only two oral statements, fewer in fact than the number of urgent questions you have afforded, Mr Speaker. In that statement, will the Leader of the House endorse my suggestion at the recent Procedure Committee inquiry that MPs should be able to force timely further scrutiny of written ministerial statements either here on in Westminster Hall?

George Young: This Administration are making roughly 50% more ministerial statements than the preceding Administration. Indeed, we were criticised for bringing forward a ministerial statement yesterday, so it is difficult to strike the right balance. The hon. Gentleman refers to work by the Procedure Committee, which is looking at ministerial statements. This Administration are always anxious to come to the House to make statements, but we have to take into account the business that follows, as Mr Speaker has just mentioned, and get the right balance between time for statements and time for debates about Opposition motions, Back-Bench motions or other legislative proposals.

Margaret Ritchie: Will the Leader of the House consider a debate on the removal of the aggregates levy by the European Commission at a time when the Treasury is working with the Northern Ireland Executive to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy?

George Young: I understand the concern in Northern Ireland about that proposal. I cannot promise time for a debate, but might I suggest that the hon. Lady puts in a bid for an Adjournment debate or a debate in Westminster Hall, so that she can give the issue the attention that it deserves?

Nick de Bois: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement by the Treasury on the future of the business mileage car fuel allowance, which has remained unchanged for many years despite the massive increase in fuel prices? It results in many people who are remunerated only on the statutory scale being out of pocket for just doing their job.

George Young: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Without promising a debate, I can say to him that I will raise the matter with my ministerial colleagues who have this responsibility, ask them if they are satisfied that we have the balance right, and then write to him.

Jeremy Corbyn: When will the Ministry of Defence make a statement on Trident initial gate? Will the Leader of the House ensure that the statement is made to the House and is followed by a full substantive debate in Government time?

George Young: There will be an opportunity to cross-examine my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 31 January, when he will be answering questions, but I have no plans at this stage for a specific debate. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there were historically a number of set days for debates on defence matters, but whether that continues is a matter for the Backbench Business Committee.

William Cash: On written ministerial statements, will the Leader of the House take note of the fact that today the European Scrutiny Committee has issued its report on the referendum issues under the European Union Bill? The ministerial statement issued today by the Minister for Europe covers ground relating to these issues in the Bill, and it would have been far better to have made an oral statement and not to set a pattern for future ministerial statements that are bound to lead to a whole series of urgent questions as and when these matters are raised.

George Young: My hon. Friend may have seen on the Order Paper that the Government have allocated an extra day to debate the Bill, in which he is taking a very close interest. He may have an opportunity during its passage to raise the specific issues that he mentions. On his request for more oral statements, I repeat that the Government have to balance the need for the House to know what Ministers are up to with the need for the House to make progress on the business that has been set out for the day.

Andrew Miller: Last week I raised with the Leader of the House the inaccuracy in the answering of questions by the Department for Transport on important issues of shipping safety. As yet, I have heard nothing from the Department. Has he heard anything, or is the Bermuda triangle getting bigger and bigger?

George Young: I well remember the exchange that I had with the hon. Gentleman last week, when I think I apologised for any discourtesy. I will make urgent inquiries today and ensure that he is put in the picture. I am sorry if he has not heard anything between last week and today.

Christopher Pincher: Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the Public Accounts Committee report when it is published, particularly following the evidence given yesterday by Sir Nicholas Macpherson that under the previous Government spending across a range of Departments was out of control? That would give the House the opportunity to hear how the Government are going to fix the problem and give the Opposition an opportunity to apologise for the mess they made.

George Young: I am sure that many hon. Members share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. Yesterday the PAC was told:
	"There was a point in the last decade when the Ministry of Defence lost control of public spending...We put Defence on special measures."
	I think that that loss of control explains why we are facing such a huge financial deficit. I welcome the publication of the PAC's report on this important matter, and I hope that it will be possible to find time to debate it.

Valerie Vaz: On 10 January, I asked the Secretary of State for Health a question about who took the decision to stop the flu advertising campaign, and when, and I received no response. I also asked him a written question that was due for response on 17 January, but I still have not received a response. Could the Leader of the House help a lowly Back Bencher to find out how to get an answer to a simple question?

George Young: Again, I am sorry if there has been any discourtesy to the hon. Lady. My understanding is that the Secretary of State has throughout acted on professional advice on all the issues relating to the advertising campaign. If there is an overdue parliamentary question, of course it will be pursued with vigour.

Peter Bone: This Government continue to put Parliament first, with the election of Select Committee Chairmen, the Backbench Business Committee, free votes in Committee and the relaxation of programme motions. May we have a statement from the Leader of the House next week on whether that could be extended slightly so that the Back-Bench business debate on votes for prisoners could be a free vote?

George Young: I welcome what my hon. Friend says about the progress being made by the coalition Government in strengthening Parliament and giving back some of the powers that it lost to the Executive. The forthcoming debate on parliamentary reform, which he chose, will be an opportunity to debate that issue. Of course, we are having a debate on votes for prisoners only because this Government did something that the previous Government refused to do-we set up the Backbench Business Committee and gave it the power to do this. The advice that Members from the coalition parties are given on how to dispose themselves when something comes to a vote is beyond my pay grade, but I am sure that the Chief Whip will be watching this on television as we speak.

Nicholas Dakin: The Prime Minister made a high-profile commitment to increasing the number of midwives by 3,000. Will we get a statement in this House to spell out how the Government are going to do this, or will it be another broken promise?

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. Health questions takes place next Tuesday, and if he does not catch the eye of Mr Speaker then, there may be an opportunity to raise the issue in the debate on the Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill on the following Monday.

Julian Smith: Following the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement on extending paternity leave to up to 10 months, may we have a debate on the impact of this policy proposal on very small businesses across the country?

George Young: I understand the concern of small businesses that find it difficult to manage if they are not quite sure how a relatively small number of staff might take their leave. There would be an opportunity to debate this in an Adjournment debate or to raise it at Business, Innovation and Skills questions. In any event, I will pass on my hon. Friend's concern to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and ask what measures are in place to ensure that undue burdens are not placed on small businesses.

Stephen Twigg: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the differential impact of Government cuts on police spending? Merseyside acquires 80% of its funding for its local police service from the Government, whereas Surrey gets only 50%, which means that Government cuts hit Merseyside much harder than Surrey. How can that be fair?

George Young: I believe I am right in saying that proportionate to its population Merseyside has more officers than almost any other part of the country. There will be an opportunity to debate this, because some time next month the House will have to debate and approve the police grant and the revenue support grant. That will give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to raise the matter at greater length.

Don Foster: Huge problems are created for our police, health service and local communities by binge drinking fuelled by pocket money-priced alcohol in supermarkets. Given that there was huge disappointment on both sides of the House about the written statement on minimum pricing, will the Leader of the House agree to an oral statement so that we can share our disappointment with Ministers and persuade them to go further?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill is going through the House at the moment, and I ask rhetorically whether it contains measures relating to alcohol which it would be relevant to discuss when it comes back to the House. In the meantime, I will pass on his request for an oral statement and encourage him to find some other opportunity to have a debate on this very serious matter.

Thomas Docherty: You will recall, Mr Speaker, that last week, further to a point raised by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), I asked the Leader of the House about the failure of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to notify the House about H1N1 outbreaks, but I am yet to receive a response. I am sure that it is on his desk, so could he send it over to me as soon as possible?

George Young: I do recall our exchange last week, and my office did indeed contact DEFRA. I understand that DEFRA Ministers have responded to two of the hon. Gentleman's questions on the issue this week. I am also informed that because the strain of H1N1 that was detected was of a low pathogenicity, it was not a notifiable disease, so there was no written statement. However, DEFRA Ministers are writing to him, and I hope he will receive the letter today or tomorrow.

Jeremy Lefroy: An unsung success of the British economy is the £47 billion trade surplus in financial and business services. May we have a debate on how we can improve those services so that we can create more jobs in the UK economy, particularly in the west midlands?

George Young: My hon. Friend does well to remind us of the benefits of those services. There will be an opportunity to debate that matter in the Budget debate. In the meantime, he can raise it at Treasury questions, or apply for an Adjournment debate or a debate in Westminster Hall.

Diana Johnson: Although I welcome the announcement by Siemens this morning about potential jobs in Hull, it comes against the backdrop of huge job losses in the public and private sectors in Hull and the Humber. I also note the announcement this week that the employment rate in my constituency is 7.1%, against a national average of 3.6%. May we therefore have a debate on the regional nature and the gender nature of the job losses that we are seeing across the country?

George Young: There will be an opportunity if the hon. Lady's Front-Bench colleagues choose to debate the general issue of unemployment on the Opposition day that I announced a few minutes ago. We have, I hope, assisted the situation by abolishing the tax on jobs proposed by her party, which would not have assisted employment in Hull. We have doubled the enterprise allowance and have taken other measures to promote employment. She will have seen that there has been a rise in job vacancies and a fall in the number of people applying for jobseeker's allowance. I hope that we will have an opportunity to debate the Government's economic policy; we will in the Budget debate, if not before then in Back-Bench time or on an Opposition motion.

Julian Lewis: After a six-year campaign and a year-long public inquiry, the nightmare prospect of a container port on the edge of the New Forest was blocked. May we have a statement soon from a Defence Minister on the proposal to sell the freehold of land near Marchwood military port on Southampton Water, because my constituents are concerned that if Associated British Ports was the buyer of the freehold, that nightmare prospect of a container port would be revived?

George Young: I well remember my hon. Friend's vigorous campaign in earlier Parliaments on precisely this issue. As he said, it was announced in the strategic defence and security review that the Ministry of Defence intended to sell Marchwood sea mounting centre. Since then, no formal dialogue or negotiations have been entered into with any interested parties, including ABP. Work is at an early stage and the Government will engage relevant stakeholders, including, I am sure, my hon. Friend and the local residents whom he represents.

Barry Gardiner: May we have a debate on Government procurement practice? I am sure that the Leader of the House will be as surprised as I was to find that it is now policy to allow contractors to specify the terms of the contract. That, of course, is the nature of the NHS reforms, with the GP contractor.

George Young: There will be an opportunity to discuss that issue in consideration of the Health and Social Care Bill. I am not sure that the practice is wholly unprecedented. I remember smart procurement in the MOD, which moved away from an adversarial process towards one of a more joint nature. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity, during proceedings on the Health and Social Care Bill, to consider the responsibilities of GPs under the proposed GP commissioning and to raise the concern he has just touched on.

Charlie Elphicke: May we have a debate on the NHS? In my constituency, our hospital has been decimated and all but closed over the past decade. A new hospital has now been announced by a new Government, with the beds provided by GP commissioning. It is important that the House explore that issue and the ring-fencing of the NHS budget compared with the cuts proposed by the previous Government.

George Young: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. I hope that he will speak on Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill to make the point, which he just touched on briefly, that GP commissioning is the way forward, is popular in his constituency, and is the right way to go as we reform the NHS.

Kevin Brennan: One way of stopping the complaints about announcements appearing in the press beforehand-this is a helpful suggestion-would be for the Leader of the House to announce the Government media grid at the same time as he announces the future business of the House on Thursdays. Just what is it on the Government media grid on Monday that means that the Home Secretary is refusing to grace us with her presence until next Wednesday?

George Young: When the hon. Gentleman's party was in government, I am not sure that it put in the public domain the media grid devised by Alastair Campbell. The Home Secretary will be at this Dispatch Box on Monday, ready to answer questions on whatever matters colleagues raise.

Robert Halfon: Following his remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), has the Leader of the House seen my early-day motion 1312?
	 [That this House expresses concern that NHS employees often cover a significant amount of the costs involved in travelling to carry out their daily duties, due to huge local variations in the expenses regime inherited from the previous Government; notes that employees in mental health services are particularly vulnerable due to a high level of travel in their profession; further notes that rising fuel costs have increased the burden on all staff who regularly travel; and urges the Government to review the current rates of reimbursement and to support the exemplary service NHS staff provide nationally.]
	Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate specifically on fuel costs for NHS workers? Last week, I visited the Derwent centre in Harlow, where medical workers told me of the huge fuel costs that they pay. Sometimes they receive as little as 12p per mile for work travel. Is there something that the Government can do to alleviate their situation?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend's concern on behalf of those who are inadequately remunerated for their motoring costs. The NHS terms and conditions handbook contains provisions for the reimbursement of the cost of using a car for business purposes. If the staff in his constituency are not on national terms and conditions, the arrangements would have to be reviewed locally. I will bring his point to the attention of my colleagues at the Department of Health.

Denis MacShane: May we have a debate on Tunisia, where a revolution is taking place that may be as hopeful as that of Polish Solidarity 30 years ago, or as disastrous as the one in Iran? I hope that the Leader of the House will not just refer me to Foreign Office questions, because we need time for more considered debate in this House. Foreign affairs are being squeezed gently out of the House of Commons review and debate remit. It is a bit of a problem if we are to become a House that discusses only what happens in the UK.

George Young: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Foreign Secretary made a statement on Tunisia earlier this week, so it is not the case that the Government do not take that matter seriously. I understand that the vast majority of British nationals have now left Tunisia in line with the advice. The Foreign Secretary has called for a rapid return to law and order in that country. We welcome the efforts of the Tunisian authorities to hold elections as soon as possible, and we hope that those elections are free and fair. I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's view that this House does not place adequate importance on foreign affairs, but it is of course open to the Backbench Business Committee, and indeed to him, to make a bid for specific subjects that it is thought deserve greater attention.

Harriett Baldwin: Will the Leader of the House ensure that the debate on parliamentary reform in Westminster Hall is broad enough to cover the outrageous filibustering tactics of Labour Lords this week in the other place, which does not benefit from the tender ministrations of our Speaker?

George Young: As I understand it, the debate is on parliamentary reform-it does not come much broader than that. I share my hon. Friend's concern about what is happening down the other end. When I came into this House some time ago, all the rough trade was down here, and down the other end there were non-partisan, short, focused debates in a revising Chamber. The rough trade now seems to have gone down the other end. The other place runs the risk of losing the moral high tone if its Members continue to proceed as they are.

Pete Wishart: I follow the call of the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) for a debate on the minimum price of alcohol that was set by the Government this week. It was roundly condemned by health professionals as doing absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, the Liberals and Conservatives gang up with the Labour party in the Scottish Parliament to block the setting of meaningful minimum prices for Scotland. Why is there that discrepancy? Is it the case that Liberals and Conservatives are interested in minimum pricing only if it makes no difference to health and crime?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reinforcing the bid that has just been made. It is open to him to go to the Backbench Business Committee to ask for a specific debate on the minimum price of alcohol. He can then draw the comparisons between what happens in Scotland and the rest of the UK, and debate the proposals. In the light of the interest in this subject, the Backbench Business Committee might well find it a popular one.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Leader of the House consider giving Westminster Hall a boost by trying to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to attend and respond to occasional debates in that Chamber? Will he lead by example by being there for the important parliamentary reform debate on Thursday 3 February?

George Young: I have attended debates in Westminster Hall and listened to my colleagues holding forth. I had planned to ask the Deputy Leader of the House, who is the world's greatest expert on parliamentary reform, to respond to the debate, but I will see if I can come along to listen to part of the proceedings.

Tom Watson: The balance between security and liberty was incorrectly struck, so we need to reduce pre-charge detention powers from 28 to 14 days-so said the Minister for Immigration. He also said that the security threat is such that we need emergency powers in reserve for pre-charge detention at 28 days. That is a contradiction. Will the Leader of the House commit to put the request to the Home Secretary, made by Members on both sides of the House, that she make the statement on Monday before the emergency powers lapse, so that we can test the theory?

George Young: My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration made it clear that the powers would lapse on Monday, which was a clear statement of Government policy. He also said that we would put in the Library draft emergency legislation that would reach the statute book only if the House so approved. It seems to me that there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory about that at all. It is a sensible and balanced response to the twin imperatives to which the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) referred.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Leader of the House and colleagues for their exemplary succinctness, which enabled us to get through everyone in a timely fashion.

Points of Order

Gerry Sutcliffe: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) asked about the urgent question this morning, I point out that I have been in the House for 16 years and have never seen a situation in which the Opposition have had to raise a question in order for the Government to make a statement and an announcement.
	The Minister for Immigration said that he would put the details in the Library. I have checked with the Library, and those details are not there. The predicament for the House is that the legislation will lapse on Monday, when we have Home Office questions. Can we not urge the Home Secretary to make her statement on Monday?

Mr Speaker: What I can say is twofold. First, no doubt material promised for the Library will get there as soon as possible. Secondly, although I am extremely sympathetic with the general cause of revealing material first to the House and there being an opportunity for scrutiny of Government policy, it is surely as much as I can say to the hon. Gentleman that today the House has had the opportunities provided by the urgent question. We shall have to await the development of events.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. While I was congratulating the Government earlier, I made the mistake of not congratulating you on the speed with which the House is getting through questions and how Parliament is improving because of that.

Mr Speaker: I do not look for congratulations, but the hon. Gentleman's generosity of spirit is already legendary, and as a result of what he has just said it has become more so.

Diana Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Education Secretary told the House,  Official Report, column 888, that people in Hull should vote Liberal Democrat as the council provided a full travel grant for 16 to 18-year-olds in receipt of education maintenance allowance. He did not mention that the current grant of £100 a year is only about £3 a week and does not cover the full travel costs, or that it is available only to those travelling more than 3 miles. The scheme is discretionary and is threatened by the £67 million of cuts that the coalition Government are imposing on Hull. Under a Labour council, Hull previously provided a totally free student travel pass. Is there an opportunity for the correct facts to be put before the House?

Mr Speaker: In the assessment of the hon. Lady, that version has just been put on the record, and I am sure the House is indebted to her.

Barry Gardiner: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You graciously invited the Speaker of the Indian Parliament to be with us this week, and she has had a very successful visit. You may be aware, however, that she was subject to significant embarrassment yesterday when attending a meeting at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, chaired by the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson). A map of India was displayed incorrectly showing Kashmir as entirely separate from India, causing real debate and distress to some members of her delegation. Could an investigation be made into why such a map was in the CPA rooms and why that embarrassment was caused to that distinguished delegation?

Mr Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and the CPA will doubtless have a view about it. I echo entirely what he said about Speaker Kumar, whom it was my great privilege to meet, welcome and entertain, but I hope he will understand if I refrain from saying anything further today on the Floor of the House. I note his observations.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	[16th Allotted Day]

Horse Racing Levy

Matthew Hancock: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that the horseracing industry supports employment of 100,000 people in Britain and that the racing industry contributes £3.5 billion to the UK economy each year; celebrates the contribution the industry makes to the cultural and sporting landscape of Britain; recognises Newmarket's role as the global headquarters of racing; but further notes that the horseracing betting levy yield has been falling in recent years; further recognises the changing nature of the gambling industry; is concerned that betting operators are increasingly based offshore and so do not fully contribute to the levy; and considers that the Government should bring forward proposals to improve the system of funding for racing and the relationship between racing and bookmakers before the end of 2011.
	I am delighted that we have three hours to debate this important topic, because the future of horse racing in Britain is at stake. This golden sport, which brings together man and beast, flat cap and top hat, the rural charm of Bangor-on-Dee and the pomp and ceremony of Ascot-this jewel in the crown of British sporting culture-faces an uncertain future and immediate and urgent woes.
	All is not lost. As anybody who has seen today's  Racing Post knows, attendances are up-racing is the second most attended sport after football. Britain's bloodstock has rarely been of a higher quality, and A. P. McCoy won the BBC sports personality of the year award. However, racing's finances are at risk, and it falls within the power of the House to support today's motion, which calls on the Government to act to secure for our nation the future of the sport that is the cause of such pride.
	For centuries, since King Charles II took his court to Newmarket twice yearly for a month of relaxation and raucousness, Britain has led the world in horse racing. In the past, racing provided the impetus for the training and breeding of cavalry horses during times of peace, and now it supports more than 100,000 jobs across the country and, in all, £3.5 billion of our economy. It contributes to our culture, and even to our language.
	In Newmarket alone, 5,000 jobs are related to that town's place as the global headquarters of the sport-not only owners, trainers and champion jockeys but modestly paid stable staff, grooms, farriers and those performing all the ancillary services. That complex economy, like an ecosystem, is in delicate balance, and that balance is under threat.
	The levy system set up 50 years ago is broken, and the funding that underpins racing is seeping through the holes in that outdated system. I shall briefly set out what has happened, why, and what should be done about it. To explain what has happened, I shall delve into the ecosystem that I described. Money comes into racing from punters who like to punt and owners who like to own. The Tote, which was set up by racing, not by the Government, adds to the pot, and I look forward to its future being secured with the appropriate recognition of racing.
	Money comes in from people who spend a day at the races, from media rights and from the levy contributions of those who make a bet. That, in turn, feeds into prize money, which goes partly to jockeys and stable staff-we should always remember that they, too, benefit when their horse crosses the line first-but mostly to owners. It is that hope and aspiration, the golden bauble of the pot of money at the finish post, that attracts owners into the industry and lures them to race. Say it quietly, but the amount of money injected by owners actually outweighs the amount that they win back in prize money by a ratio of about 3:1. If my father-in-law is watching, I hope he takes note of that. Owners, in turn, use their money, some of which they have won back in prize money, to pay horsemen to train and breed bloodstock.
	There are many reasons to own a racehorse, as some Members know.

Philip Davies: Stupidity, in my case.

Matthew Hancock: Well, it is not only the triumph of hope over expectation but the glamour of the winners' enclosure and the thrill of the race. Without the chance for owners to win prize money, racing's finances are on tenterhooks. Prize money is at the core of racing's economy-it is the chlorophyll in the ecosystem, or some have called it the lubricant of the wheels of racing. It attracts people in and brings in far more money than is provided for it.
	What has happened to prize money? Over the past two years alone, the annual amount that the levy has paid has fallen from more than £100 million to £65 million. Prize money from the levy has fallen, too, from £65 million two years ago to £34 million, a drop of almost half. At Worcester, prize money from the levy has fallen by more than two thirds. Even before that precipitous decline, Britain ranked 38th in the world in prize money, miles behind Dubai and Hong Kong but also behind America, Italy, South Africa, Sweden, Australia, Ireland, Germany and Turkey.
	The comparison with our nearest neighbour, France, is stark. Maiden race prize money in 2009 at Longchamp averaged £20,000, whereas at Newmarket it was £8,000. At Deauville, average prize money was £20,000, compared with £11,000 at Ascot. We find a similar contrast at the more provincial racecourses. At St Malo, average prize money was £12,000, but at Catterick it was £4,000-for comparable races, prize money in this country is still lower. At Le Lion D'Angers, prize money was £12,000, but £5,000 at Yarmouth.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate my hon. Friend. I am closely following what he is saying. What impact has the additional number of race meetings through the year had on prize money?

Matthew Hancock: That is an extremely important point. The amount in the prize pot is falling, but the number of races is expanding, and it is doing so at the behest of the gambling industry, which understandably wants continuous racing throughout the year. Those two dynamics make the consequences for the racing industry even worse, because the amount of prize money that owners get for coming second or third in a race is small, which leads to an even greater problem for people who run their horses. That is an important point.
	British trainers are being diverted from running and owning in Britain to France and further, which threatens not only those moving their horses, but the breeding industry in this country, which is undoubtedly the best in the world. Without that first-rate racing, the industry will not survive here for long-it will decline-but it has taken decades to build up Britain's reputation as the best place for training and breeding bloodstock.

Pete Wishart: I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I am glad that he mentions transport and travel. Friends of Scottish Racing is concerned about the distances involved in getting infrastructure to race courses such as Perth and the additional costs that must be met by owners and trainers. Has he considered that in the context of the future of the levy and horse racing throughout the UK? What would he say about some of those difficulties with travelling distances?

Matthew Hancock: That is an extremely important point. I was speaking to a successful and wise trainer yesterday, who told me that trainers will often not send horses to race in Scotland unless another horse goes on the lorry. Of course, that takes out runners, which does not help the gambling industry-it is a circular process.
	I received a phone call yesterday from a Mr Staddon, who owns five horses. He took one to Hereford last week. It jumped all 19 fences and came third. Hon. Members might think that that is pretty good, but his prize money was £205, and it cost him £650 to race and travel. He came third, but did not get even a third of his costs back. He is seriously considering giving up. If he takes his five horses out of training, the trainer will have to cut staff, farriers and all the services that go with stables. He fears job losses in racing on a mass scale.
	The task is urgent. We know where the money that is made in racing lies. In Britain, there is a 1% return to racing from betting turnover, compared with 5% in Japan or 8% in the US and France. The gambling industry's gross win on racing is more than £1 billion a year. Yesterday, we were all delighted that William Hill reported a sharp increase in profits.

George Howarth: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman both on the topic that he chosen and the way in which he is presenting his argument. He accurately describes some of the difficulties, but does he not accept that they exist under the levy, and that it might well be better for everybody concerned if racing and the bookmaking industry came to a commercial agreement rather than fall back on the Government?

Matthew Hancock: The right hon. Gentleman is an astute Member of the House, as I have learned in my short time here, and he nicely anticipates what I am about to say.
	Before I address that point, the second question is: why has that decline in the levy happened? There are four holes in the levy through which contributions are leaking: offshore operators, betting exchanges, thresholds and overseas racing. They are set out in the racing united charter, which I urge all hon. Members to sign-they would be joining not only me, but A.P. McCoy and even a member of Abba.

Philip Davies: I commend my hon. Friend for his initiative in introducing this debate. Before he describes the holes in the levy, will he acknowledge that the amount given by bookmakers to racing averaged out, between 2006 and 2010, according to the independent members of the Horserace Betting Levy Board, at £164 million a year-in TV money and levy combined-and that this year it will be £160 million, which is a drop of only 2.5%? Will he also acknowledge that, at the same time, Arena Leisure's profits increased by 52%? When he is looking at prize money, will he focus less on the betting industry, which still gives lots of money despite the fact that horse racing is a smaller and smaller part of its business, and look at racecourses, which are not passing on their increased income in prize money?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but his phraseology lets slip the error in the argument. The betting industry gives no money to racing; it pays money to racing. I want a system in which that is sustainable. Of course, people who watch a sport should pay towards it. How much of the money made from media rights gets to the front line of racing is an important question, and I hope that those rights will be negotiated very tightly by racing in future. The amount of levy has fallen from more than £100 million to £65 million, but the levy reflects the fact that when people make bets, part of their stake is a contribution to the cost of putting on that race. It is appropriate for racing to charge bookmakers for using its output and product. That is the nub of the argument.
	The first hole in the levy is offshore betting. UK consumers are reported to spend about £2.5 billion on internet and phone gambling, but operators licensed by the Gambling Commission represent less than a quarter of that-the rest is spent offshore. Three quarters of online betting, therefore, does not contribute to the levy or other taxes, and consumers are not protected under UK rules. Ireland's recent budget began to tackle that, and I hope that the Minister will follow suit. I am sure that such a measure would have the support of the gambling industry. I spoke to the big gambling organisations in the run-up to this debate. Each firm told me that it considered going offshore only because all the others are doing so. Let us bring all those firms onshore and subject bets to the levy and the appropriate tax here in Britain.
	Betting exchanges are the second hole in the levy. Currently, exchanges pay 10% of the levy on profits that derive from commission from winning bets on each market. However, that produces very little for the levy-less than 0.5%-compared with the return from the same activity with traditional bookmakers. According to Betfair, some users of betting exchanges place around 1,000 bets per hour, but pay no levy or tax because they close their bets before the race is concluded. I am delighted that Betfair paid around £6 million to the levy last year, and by its widespread sponsorship, but the loss to the levy from the fact that exchanges are treated inappropriately is roughly £25 million, and I urge the Government to act.

Claire Perry: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate that is hugely important in my constituency, where we have a lovely combination of free-draining soil, chalk and turf that does not freeze very easily, hence our important training and racing industry. Exchange transactions are frequently concerned with how many goals will be scored in a football match or whether a player will show up, and other things that do not have a cost associated with them and have almost no benefit to the rural economies we are so proud to represent. Does he agree that part of the reason for securing a change to the levy is so that the industries that employ thousands of people and have a material benefit in our rural communities-they are hugely important-can be adequately supported?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend makes her case with the passion to which we have become accustomed.
	The third hole in the levy is that outdated threshold rules exempt approximately two thirds of betting shops from paying the full rate. Thresholds were brought in to protect small independent bookmakers, but because the threshold applies to the shop and not to the company, we have a proliferation of corporate betting shops up and down our high street-in Newmarket, we are about to get our 12th. This allows betting shops to profit from fixed odds betting terminals while avoiding some of the levy. Independent members of the levy board say that this threshold error costs racing some £10 million. They think that it should be abolished, and I hope that the Minister will listen.

Justin Tomlinson: As the vice-chair of the all-party group on small shops, I have real concerns about the point that my hon. Friend has just made about the threshold. Yes, many such shops are part of the big national companies, but a lot of them are independents. Even those bigger companies could close down many of their smaller shops, leading to job losses and further pressure on the high street and village shopping centres-it would decimate them.

Matthew Hancock: Job losses in the racing industry, if it does not have a secure future, would far outweigh job losses that my hon. Friend mentions. What is more, large corporate betting shops are often split up to have two shops below the levy. It was introduced to protect independent bookies, and we would all welcome it if they were to be protected under a future scheme. But protecting small shops that are owned by large corporates was not the intention.
	The charter proposes payments for customers in Britain who place bets on overseas racing. That hole costs some £13 million, and the independent members of the levy board say that that should be closed-I hope that the Minister agrees.
	What should we do? In the short term, the Government can keep the ecosystem of racing alive by plugging the holes in the levy, by finding this year in favour of racing in the determination of the levy, and by fulfilling their promise to resolve the future of the Tote in a way that recognises its support for racing. But all sides agree that the levy is broken and needs radical reform. The bookies think that the levy is broken, racing thinks it is broken, the Secretary of State thinks that it is broken, and Members on both sides of the House seem to think that it is broken. No one wants the annual spectacle of ministerial decision about the funding of racing, not least because it unnecessarily antagonises relationships, wastes time and money and prevents a proper commercial relationship between racing and betting. Anyone who has witnessed the ugly and inaccurate adverts in past weeks can see the waste of money.
	We need a system that leaves racing and betting to their commercial future and ensures that racing's product is appropriately financed and protected. Some say that the levy should be abolished and nothing put in its place. They are saying that gambling should get something for nothing. Racing is clearly an input into betting, so of course betting should contribute to the costs of putting on a race. Everyone would like something for nothing, but no one would say that it is the basis for a commercial relationship, which is what the bookies say they are looking for. So let us have that commercial relationship. Let us formalise what it is that racing sells. If someone invented a new cancer drug, would someone else be allowed to replicate it without paying them for the research that went into developing the drug? We have all seen the scary warnings at the start of rented films saying that piracy is a crime. If hon. Members made a film, would they let someone else print off copies of it without contributing to the cost? Of course not.

Charlie Elphicke: We do not have any racecourses in my constituency, but I have many constituents who like to gamble. If they were listening to my hon. Friend's powerful argument, they would be deeply distressed that the betting industry does not pay its fair share and agree that it should do so.

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend is a very wise man.
	Racing is no different from other intellectual property. We need a new, fair structure that keeps British racing the best in the world and ensures that those who profit from racing help to pay for racing, so I support a racing right.

Ian Lavery: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this topic to the Floor of the House. The motion requests that proposals are made on the funding of racing, including the levy and commercialisation. Does he agree that, if we have a wholesale review of the funding of racing, greyhound racing should be included, so that a statutory levy could be introduced to fund that sport?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and the relationship with greyhound racing-in which racing has again lost out in recent years-is an important consideration.

Simon Hart: Another form of racing that has not had a mention yet, but which is important in this context, is the amateur version-point-to-point. Some 4,000 horses are in training and it has a huge social and economic relevance to this debate. Will my hon. Friend comment on its relevancy?

Matthew Hancock: Most betting on point-to-point racing happens on course, and bookies who go on course pay for the privilege, so there is a transfer from betting to racing there. I adore point-to-point as a good day out and I hope that it is properly financed in future. It needs to be part of the mix, but we should recognise that most of the betting in point-to-point is on course.

Steve Rotheram: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I am not an expert in this area, although I have been contacted by representatives of Aintree race course, home of the world famous Grand National, which backs on to my back garden-[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Not all of it-my garden is not that big. The racecourse primarily sits in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). As people will know, Aintree has world class facilities and race meetings. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the levy is important even to racecourses at the top end so that they can continue to improve the racing that they offer, which will then attract tourism to cities such as Liverpool and contribute wider economic benefits to the sub-region?

Matthew Hancock: Aintree is undoubtedly my favourite jump course, and I spent much of my youth on Grand National days as a fence judge, catching horses with fallen riders, and occasionally putting the riders back on board-the especially brave ones. So I have a particular love of Aintree, and I agree that this issue is important for every racecourse in the country, especially those at the top.
	A racing right, which protects the property of a racecourse that puts on an event, would benefit the racing industry. It would benefit the bookies who survive on a strong racing industry with year-round fixtures. Some say go further. I have been contacted by the Football Association and the England and Wales Cricket Board, which support a betting right for all sports-and I understand that the International Olympic Committee also supports it. I can see the merit and logic in that argument. France does it, Australia does it and the Californians are looking at it. But my focus-and the focus of this debate-is unambiguously on racing.
	In horse racing, Britain-and my constituency-is the home of one of the greatest sports on the planet. The sleek beauty of the thoroughbred as he crosses the line, the tough determination of the national hunt, the dedication of the horsemen and the great amphitheatres of the crowd all have their future in our hands. I passionately believe in the future of racing in Britain. I ask this: years from now, will we look back in wonderment at this sport of beauty and skill and speed that fell into ruin? Or will we say that, in the nick of time, we gave this great sport we love the future hat it deserves?

Several hon. Members: rose -

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has placed an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in this debate, which the Backbench Business Committee assumes will end by 3 o'clock, including the responses from Front Benchers. I hope that Members will bear that in mind.

Gerry Sutcliffe: It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on securing it. As he will know, I was the previous Minister responsible for sport and gambling and, as such, the levy and the relationship between racing and betting are issues close to my heart, and I have sympathy with the Minister and the Department because the issue is back on their desk for them to deal with.
	I agree with the hon. Member for West Suffolk that the levy is broken. It has become very divisive, with both sides putting their cases as strongly as they can and perhaps taking their eye off the ball in relation to what is going on in the two sectors. The two sectors are linked-there is no point in saying otherwise-even though the bookmaking and betting industry would say that revenue from horse racing constitutes a lower percentage of its turnover than from other sports. However, the two go together. He might remember the on-course bookmaker pitch problems, which fortunately were resolved through common sense; that common sense has to apply again.
	The industry cannot afford to lose the money from the levy, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, has fallen over recent years. The sector cannot rely, and has not been relying, on the levy: it tried the racing for change project, and the various partners that make up racing have been looking to the future. Everybody agrees that the sport is part of the cultural life of our country. Anybody from anywhere can enjoy it at whatever level they want-and they should be able to continue to do so-but the two sides have to come together and, in my view, the solution has to be a commercial one.
	What should the Government's role be? They should try to get out of the levy, if they can, and ensure that something is there to take its place. It has been tried before: in 2006, Lord Donoughue attempted to come up with a solution to meet the requirements. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that time is running out, however, and that we need to sort this out. The betting industry is changing. We have the offshore problem, for example, and I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the review that I commissioned into that and about what might flow from it. Is he able to update the House?
	The relationship has to be a commercial one. The nature of betting shops has changed as well, with fixed odds betting terminals now representing more than 40% of their income. The Government should consider what can be done about the FOBTs. The right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) knows that I was looking into that matter-although without great success, I have to say. There needs to be a change in outlook on that.

Anne McIntosh: May I place on the record my admiration for what the hon. Gentleman achieved as a Minister in the previous Administration? Does he think that a proposal to replace the levy with a "pound-per-shop-per-race" fee would be feasible? It would raise £90 million a year, but would not address the overseas problem. Does he think that it could work in this country?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. Everything has to be considered. As a Minister, I tried to bring the sectors together to hammer out a possible solution. There was a lot of good will on all sides among the bodies represented, but we could not decide on the best way forward, so we had to rely on the levy. That cannot and should not continue, and I would be supportive if the Government decided that this is the last time they should have to determine the outcome of the levy.
	I am moving towards the idea of a sports betting right. That is now the way forward. The European Union now has competency for sport, and at the meeting of Sports Ministers I attended last year, the idea of a sports betting right started to develop. If a sport offers its services-with all the costs that go with it-it is only fair that a sports right should be considered in legislation. I think that Ministers will move towards a sports betting right, and I would support that campaign.

Philip Davies: May I say to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a lot of time, that this is a novel concept for a Labour politician? Most sports betting is on premiership football, so presumably the money raised would go there. It is novel that a Labour politician would want to take money out of poor punters' pockets in betting shops in order to add it to the wages of John Terry and Carlos Tevez in the premier league. Does that not seem a bizarre redistribution of wealth?

Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not going to get involved in John Terry's wages anymore-they are not my problem. However, there are issues about where money from sports rights should go, and about the grass roots and how we fund grass-roots sports. However, the money would go not just to the premier league, but to grass-roots sport as well.

Sam Gyimah: First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) for securing this debate. A racing right would ensure that gambling contributes to the upkeep of racing, which-I say this in response to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)-is essential if we are to keep racing and to keep Britain ahead, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk said.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman makes his point, but the gambling industry would say that it already makes a contribution. My Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), is an advocate of what the gambling industry has said about the rights it pays already-television rights, sponsorship and so on.
	There has to be an adult relationship and a commercial coming-together. The Tote can help with the way forward. The previous Government made the decision to sell the Tote, and gave a manifesto commitment to give 50% of the money raised from its sale back to racing. I know that defining racing makes that difficult, but it could be a starting point.

Andrew Griffiths: The Tote was enacted by a piece of legislation introduced by Winston Churchill. It is true that in their 2001 manifesto the Labour Government made a commitment to giving racing 50% of the proceeds from the sale of the Tote. Does the hon. Gentleman think that waiting nine years and failing to do that had a detrimental effect on the racing industry?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I do not think it had a detrimental effect. The hon. Gentleman will know the history. We were trying to relieve ourselves of the Tote while ensuring that 50% of the profits went to racing. The issue then was about the definition of racing and whom it should go to. However, we held active discussions with the racing sector on how that could happen, and I hope that it is still on the table and that the Minister will tell us what the relationship will be and what further discussions he has had.
	We need a fair return for racing, for the reasons that hon. Members have given, including its impact on society through full-time jobs in the racing and gambling sectors. I ask the Minister to consider the impact of the FOBTs and what can be done about it. I also ask him to consider what can be done about the offshore problem and the review we commissioned, and about ensuring that 50% of the proceeds from the Tote sale goes to racing. Then, we should get the sector together and make it realise that Governments of all shades are no longer interested in being the referee-it is now about the sector coming up with the solution. I hope that that will happen. This should be an excellent debate.

Laurence Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on securing this debate and on how he introduced it. He made some extremely good points. I would like to declare two non-declarable interests as it were: first, I am joint chairman of the all-party group on racing and bloodstock industries, which is one of the most active and influential-we like to think-groups in Parliament. Secondly, I have the honour of representing Cheltenham race course, and so I take slight issue with his assertion that Newmarket is the centre of world racing. I readily acknowledge that it is a fantastic establishment and the home of flat racing, but I would suggest that Cheltenham is the home of national hunt racing.
	My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the dangerous situation with regard to prize money. It is not a matter of rich owners becoming richer; it is a matter of enabling all owners to continue to own race horses and to race them at the right standard and at the right level. He also pointed out that the important part of the debate is the knock-on effects on stable staff, jockeys and trainers-all the people who are not well paid but who should be able to continue to carry out their essential work. Take them out and the whole sport collapses. That is why prize money is so important, and my hon. Friend is absolutely correct to point out that in many races owners would lose out even if they won. If a horse is at the lower levels of racing-the lower levels are extremely important-they would have to win possibly eight or nine races a season just to break even, and that would be in a good year. However, no horse is going to do that, so he is absolutely right to point out the problem.
	The current situation is paradoxical, because as my hon. Friend also pointed out, we have the most tremendous racing in this country-indeed, probably the best in the world. In just a few weeks' time, we will have the great Cheltenham festival, which is surely the greatest racing festival in the world. We can also boast the grand national shortly after, and then Royal Ascot, and the York week in August-absolutely tremendous racing that is not bettered anywhere in the world-and yet we also have this financial problem. If seems that the two situations should not go together, but they do. Racing has continued to exist because of the generosity-or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said earlier from a sedentary position, the stupidity-of some owners, who have continued to lose money. It would be rather complacent of racing to accept that this situation will continue indefinitely, because I do not think that it will.

Sam Gyimah: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with not having a stable funding base for racing is the underbelly of racing? A lot of people are attracted to racing out of their passion for it, but there is so little funding available that many live on low incomes, with a lot of suicides among people who want to become jockeys but do not make it. Racing is not just for the wealthy: there is an underbelly of racing, and to resolve that we need a stable funding base for racing as a whole.

Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just winning the Cheltenham gold cup that is important. Horses do not start off running in the gold cup; they start off running in point-to-point races, before building up to races where the prize money is perhaps less than £2,000. My hon. Friend is also absolutely right about all the people involved in that. We cannot lose those feeder tracks or what I would describe as feeder racing.
	We therefore have a problem, and I have reluctantly come to the view that the levy is an outdated system that has to be replaced. We have the problems of falling prize money, and owners running horses and not getting back a third of what they put in even when they are placed. All those problems exist under the present system, so the present system cannot be right. I have long felt that the existence of the levy does at least two things. First, it divides the people of racing. When I say "the people of racing", I include the bookmakers, because many bookmakers, whether they are chief executives or work for Ladbrokes or Hill's, are also racing people. However, each and every year, the levy negotiations serve to divide those people. We end up with this gratuitous violence, from one side to the other, which does racing no good. We saw what can be achieved when the whole of racing got together-for once-to promote Tony McCoy, who became BBC sports personality of the year, a much-deserved award. That is racing getting together-it is racing at its best-but the levy has served to divide it, each and every year.
	The second thing that the existence of the levy has done is to allow racing not to address the need to find alternative funding as urgently as it might have done. There are alternative funding mechanisms and routes for money to come in; for instance, media rights is one way, while sponsorship is another. Racecourses take money from the public, and from sponsorship and hospitality. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley was absolutely right to say that there might be a better income stream for racing from those sources in future. In 2004, when this House passed legislation to abolish the levy, it was not enacted-I understand that it is still on the statute book and can be enacted by a statutory instrument. At that time, there were negotiations and discussions on the then British Horseracing Board's ability to sell its data rights to bookmakers in order to get money for racing.
	That option was seen as a possible way forward. However, at that time, the European Union, being the wonderful organisation that it is, decided that this could not happen. It is now time to revisit that opinion, as expressed by the European Union-and, for the benefit of those reading this in  Hansard, I was being sarcastic when I described it as a "wonderful organisation". That decision has to be revisited, because I see a need to replace the levy. I have thought long and hard about this, and I think that the Minister probably ought to announce that the statutory levy will end in, let us say, three years' time. That would give racing the opportunity to forge new relationships and develop new income streams, in the knowledge that the levy will no longer be there after a certain point. Setting a date will concentrate people's minds, so that they have to come up with other funding mechanisms.

Martin Horwood: I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the motion, which is very welcome indeed. I welcome even more warmly his comments about Cheltenham race course, which is the world centre of jump racing-if it is not the favourite jump racing course of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), but I am sure that, between us, we can secure him an invitation to the gold cup that will persuade him. However, does the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) think that structural changes in the betting industry, the media and even the technology involved in betting have contributed to the levy's becoming outdated, and that both whatever replaces it and the governance structures that will come afterwards need to be sufficiently flexible to cope with future changes, so that we do not get locked into something that again becomes outdated as both industries move on?

Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I think that I am right in saying that when betting shops were licensed in 1963, about 100% of their income came from bets on horse racing or greyhounds. Now, if we put fixed odds betting terminals into the equation, the figure is as low as 35% in many cases. We have also had the internet and betting exchanges coming forward. None of that was seen or even thought of in 1963, so he is right. The world has moved on. Racing cannot go back to 1963 and say that it wants the same funding mechanism. I also entirely agree that when we decide on a replacement for the levy, we have to be flexible. That is why I would prefer more commercial arrangements, because they are, by necessity and by their very nature, flexible.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: There is just one question that I would raise, and that is about the speed of change. We have seen some scandals in betting, notably in cricket, but in horse racing there have been remarkably few. It has been very honest, which may be because of the close relationship between the betting industry and the horse racing fraternity, brought together by the levy. It would be worrying if that was broken and if something was not put in its place that would keep the system honest.

Laurence Robertson: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I think that the levy drives people apart. I do not think that it brings them together. However, the British Horseracing Authority has done a good job of keeping the sport clean, which I accept is essential.
	I want to move on quickly, because I have only a minute left. The Minister should give some consideration to announcing the end of the statutory level, perhaps in three years. I emphasise the word "statutory", because racing can always come to an arrangement with bookmakers whereby they still get paid for bets or picture rights, or whatever else.
	I want just to touch on the importance of the Tote. The future of the Tote has to be secured. I very much hope that the Minister will allow the Tote's own bid to continue to run the organisation, at least through to the next round. Last year the Tote contributed £19 million to racing, one way or another. If that were lost, racing would suffer a very severe blow indeed. I am not sure that a straight commercial sale of the Tote would provide security for racing, nor would it benefit racing in the way that the Government have promised it would. Let us not forget that the taxpayer has never put a single penny into the Tote, and therefore, in my view, does not deserve any money out of any transfer of its assets. I am always on the side of the taxpayer, but in this case the interests of racing should come first.

Catherine McKinnell: Before I talk about the horse racing levy and the impact of its decline on Newcastle racecourse, which is in my constituency, I should declare a non-declarable interest in the matter. The racecourse has a proud place in the history of Newcastle and the wider region, but it also has a prominent place in my life. In addition to my own, less frequent, visits to it, it is arguably where my father spends his happiest times-other than time spent in the bosom of his family, of course. His Christmas present for many years has been a family club-together to buy him an annual pass for the races, and his father's day gift a subscription to  Racing Ahead . We recently celebrated his 60th birthday there in style, enjoying the hospitality offered at the race course. I must therefore declare a strong personal interest for the sake of my father and many like him, who I am sure have a deep fondness for, and interest in, the safeguarding of Newcastle racecourse's future.
	There has been horse racing of one kind or another on Tyneside for the past 350 years. Newcastle's town moor hosted the first recorded Northumberland plate in 1833 and continued to do so until 1881, when the race moved to the now-famous High Gosforth park. The 812-acre High Gosforth park estate had been bought for £60,000 from Newcastle's prominent Brandling family to be operated by a
	"body of speculators actuated with the desire to promote sport in a proper fashion and get a fair return for their trouble and outlay."
	I believe that that summarises the subject of our debate today quite adequately. The Northumberland plate was first run at High Gosforth park in 1882. It is now an annual event anticipated and enjoyed by many people in Newcastle and across the region.
	Like the 59 other racecourses around the country, Newcastle racecourse continues to play an important role in the local economy, providing significant employment and acting as a social, commercial and community hub all year long. The racecourse hosts 30 race meetings throughout the year, and employs 26 full-time permanent staff and as many as 250 casual or part-time staff on race days. All those people are from the local area and rely on that full-time or additional income to support themselves and their families.
	As right hon. and hon. Members might be aware, I am a passionate supporter of apprenticeships, which is why I have introduced my ten-minute rule Bill, the Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill, which is due to have its Second Reading on 11 February. I am delighted that Newcastle racecourse has recently agreed to take on its own apprentice, through the Essential Partners organisation, which works with local colleges to deliver funded apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-olds in customer service roles.
	Newcastle racecourse, with its regional conference and exhibition facilities, makes a vital contribution to the city's impressive leisure and cultural offering. This is incredibly important, as the growth of the tourism industry and visitor economy in the past decade or so has been one of the real success stories for Tyneside and the wider north-east region. I hope that Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be aware that the increase in visitor numbers to north-east England has been outstripped only by London in recent years, and that the industry in the Newcastle-Gateshead area is worth £1.23 billion and supports around 19,000 jobs. Let me take this opportunity to invite the Department's Ministers to visit Newcastle and the north-east-which I believe they have yet to do-where they can sample for themselves the excellent attractions and facilities that Newcastle has to offer the discerning visitor. Newcastle racecourse is one of the highlights of the area.
	But I digress, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that hon. Members are aware of the purpose of the horse racing levy. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) set out eloquently the arguments for the levy and for ensuring that there is a fair return, and I will not repeat them. I appreciate that the betting industry takes a very different stance from that of racing united and the British Horseracing Authority on this issue, but the facts of the matter are clear. The mechanism through which British horse racing has been supported since the 1960s, given the significant profits that it affords the betting industry, is producing rapidly diminishing returns. It is argued that the levy system developed 50 years ago simply does not properly account for modern-day methods of betting on horse racing. I agree with the concern of the hon. Member for West Suffolk that the situation is putting prize money at risk, which in turn could make horse racing less viable, as the levy funds half of all the prize money awarded by the British Horseracing Authority.

Matthew Hancock: Is the hon. Lady aware that, over the past year, the contribution from the levy to prize money at Newcastle race course, which she so loves, fell by 41%?

Catherine McKinnell: That concern has indeed been raised with me by Newcastle racecourse, but the situation applies across the board. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, Britain is, on average, 37th in the world in terms of prize money awarded. That is a matter of great concern. The declining level of the horse racing levy also threatens to jeopardise the safeguarding of the sport's integrity and standards, veterinary science and education, training programmes and, indeed, the very future of our racecourses.
	The impact of the declining horse racing levy and the continued uncertainty about its future were summed up very well by the general manager of Newcastle racecourse in a recent conversation with me. He told me:
	"The levy money we receive is hugely important as it underpins our desire to employ more staff, invest in the business and grow the race course in the community. The reduction in the levy means that this is not currently possible and jeopardises our vision for the future. The levy reduction is already affecting our staffing plans for race days in January and February."

Nigel Adams: Over the past three years, the reduction in the levy's contribution to the industry has been £50 million, which represents a significant sum of money coming out of the industry. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to act on this matter quickly? My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) suggested delaying a decision for three years, but I am not sure that the industry can wait that long.

Catherine McKinnell: I would leave to the Minister's discretion the question of whether this should involve a gradual process or a more immediate emergency response, but I want to make a plea today for an immediate response on the percentage of the horse racing levy that is going to be contributed this year.

Laurence Robertson: Just to clarify the matter, I was not suggesting that a decision should be delayed for three years. I just think that there should be an end date to the statutory levy in order to speed up the examination of other opportunities for funding to horse racing.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification; that was my understanding of the point he was making in his speech.
	I find the words of the general manager of Newcastle racecourse deeply worrying, not only because of the economic implications at a time when Newcastle and the north-east face difficult times as a result of the Government's cuts but because of the potential knock-on effect on commercial activity and the tourism industry in the region. I would hope, given this Government's apparent commitment to supporting regions such as the north-east to grow their private sector in order to replace the thousands of lost public sector jobs, that the Secretary of State and the Minister will be equally troubled by what Mr Lane had to say. It is disappointing that we have reached a stage at which the Secretary of State has had to intervene on this issue, but I would urge him to reach a fair and equitable decision on the levy for 2011-12 as a matter of urgency.
	For all the reasons that I outlined earlier, it is also vital that British racing is placed on a secure financial footing for the long term, thereby allowing racecourses such as Newcastle that want to continue to thrive, further invest in their business and staff, and provide entertainment and pleasure to people such as my dad, to do so for many years to come. I look forward to hearing the Minister explain how he intends to secure that outcome.

Don Foster: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on securing this really important debate. As we have heard, there are 60 racecourses in the United Kingdom. They provide 20,000 direct jobs and a further 80,000 indirect jobs. They provide about £330 million in tax income to the Exchequer. Racecourses provide a wonderful range of opportunities for events to be held, they are a significant boost to tourism and, of course, provide a product that is critically important to the gambling industry.
	For some 50 years, there has been an interdependence between racing on the one hand and the gambling industry on the other. We know that the racing industry provides its share of the bargain by having a rule book, which is largely determined by the gambling industry. There are some 1,500 racing events every year and about 80% of them are dictated by the gambling industry. If that were not the case, who in their right mind would think of holding a race meeting on a cold, wet, winter's evening if they were reliant only on attendance money to cover the costs? That is its side of the bargain. As we have already heard, to ensure that bets are fair and clean, a huge amount of money is spent on integrity and other such issues.
	On the other side, as part of the independence deal, the gambling industry makes a contribution not only through the levy, but by sponsorship and other forms of support, although it is predominantly through the levy and through the increased money paid for television coverage. The levy provides funds to be used for prize money, which is critical-not least, as we have heard, for far-away courses in Scotland and elsewhere-but it also provides money for developments in veterinary science, for jockey training, education and much more.

Andrew Griffiths: I am lucky to have Uttoxeter racecourse in my constituency-a magnificent historical racecourse that is home to the west midlands grand national. My hon. Friend will know that when it comes to prize money and fees, we have seen a drop of some 38% across the industry. My own racecourse, however, has seen it drop by 61%, which is having an impact on owners and their ability to take part in the industry. Does he agree that, ultimately, that will lead to the racecourse's demise unless we do something about it?

Don Foster: I entirely agree, and it is borne out by evidence from the wonderful racecourse in my own constituency of Bath, as it doubtless is by Wincanton, which I was asked to mention by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, and indeed by the wonderful course in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). That is true because, as we have already heard, since 2003, when the levy brought £110 million into racing, it has fallen to about £65 million. Such a reduction has inevitably had an impact.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I just want to claim a share of Bath racecourse, which I believe is in North East Somerset.

Don Foster: Given the boundary changes, I have to concede that to my hon. Friend. I share the same passion he does for the course's continued success.
	I was explaining that the mutual interdependence has existed for 50 years, but it has become increasingly difficult. It is now critical to find a sustainable future for the link between the racing community and the gambling community. In so doing, we have to remove the involvement of politicians. I entirely agree with the Secretary of State when he said at the end of last year:
	"Frankly, the government should never be the last resort in an essentially commercial negotiation".
	A sustainable way forward should not involve politicians, but politicians will have to help find that way forward, which must be based on a number of fundamental principles.
	The first principle is to be absolutely clear about what the levy is about. Many hon. Members will have come across a leaflet put out by William Hill, which says under the heading "Real People, Real Jobs":
	"For every additional £1 million that the bookmakers are forced to pay in horseracing levy, 100 industry jobs may be lost for people like this".
	It goes on to provide examples of such people. That is a bit rich from an organisation that has recently moved its internet betting operation-and is soon to move its telephone operation-offshore, losing many hundreds of jobs and about £12 million of tax revenue for the Exchequer. My key point, however, can be seen on the other side of the leaflet, which says:
	"Whilst racing can depend on a 1960s state subsidy it will never have the incentive to modernise."
	My clear understanding of the levy is that it is not a state subsidy; it is a relationship between two organisations. It cannot-as some have sought to portray it-be defined as state aid. We must be clear that this is a relationship between two organisations that get mutual benefit from each other. That is crucial to understanding what we are talking about.

Philip Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Don Foster: I will, but only briefly.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman says that this should not be considered as state aid, yet his beloved European Union-I, of course, want to be out of the wretched thing-takes precisely the opposite view. In looking at the French proposals for a horse racing levy, the Commission said:
	"At this stage, the Commission considers that the aid measure contains all the features constituting the concept of State aid. After exploring several means by which the notified measure could be regarded as compatible with the rules in force, the Commission has not found any clear means of regarding it as compatible."
	I am afraid that that is what the hon. Gentleman's beloved European Union said.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of why I raised the point. There has to be clarification. Personally, having studied the various issues in some detail, I do not accept the definition that we just heard from him. Incidentally, even if he is right, which I do not believe he is, it would not threaten the levy as it was already in existence way before the establishment of those rules. There would not be a problem.

Matthew Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Don Foster: I will, but I want to finish.

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) mentioned the European Commission's view of the French system, but would it not be better to look at the view of the British system? The levy board does not define the levy as state aid precisely because it is a transfer between two industries. Moreover, a racing right would establish a property right on which our whole constitution is based.

Don Foster: Since we are getting into this topic, I shall go into a little more detail and omit some other parts of my speech. Having looked at the issue, it is clear to me that levy grants and loans are not paid by the state; by definition, therefore, they are not state aid and they are not provided through state resources. They do not impose a selective advantage; they do not distort or threaten to distort competition; and they do not affect trade between EU member states. On all criteria, this does not amount to state aid.
	I hope that we can sort out three things when we come to finding a sustainable future. The first is the offshore issue. I have long argued that we have to do something about that and I was delighted that the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), when he was the excellent Minister with that responsibility, instituted consultation on the issue. I want to see a situation where any firms or organisations regulated offshore-whether they be in the European economic area or are white listed-that want to advertise within the UK must have a secondary licence, which would require them in turn to contribute to the levy and to research, education and treatment for gambling addiction. I hope that we can resolve that issue.
	Secondly, we need to resolve the issue of betting exchanges. They cannot be allowed to get away with having no involvement in the levy. As other hon. Members have said, however, I welcome it when some of those organisations make voluntary contributions.
	Thirdly-a totally separate issue that is also important-I believe that we need to support our bookmaking industry, particularly the small independent firms that are losing out. I believe that the current charging regime of the Gambling Commission penalises them unfairly. I am worried that the current threshold, which was designed to help them, does not in fact do so, because each individual shop within a large chain reaps the benefit, rather than the small independent bookmakers. The levy board has proposed that we should remove the threshold, but I hope that we will not remove it, but reform it to provide more benefit to the small independent bookmakers.
	We need to move forward rapidly, but the deal must be done between the two mutually related independent bodies-the racing industry and the gambling industry.

Margaret Ritchie: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on securing the debate. I also join other Members in registering a non-declarable interest: Downpatrick racecourse is in my constituency. The course, which recently celebrated its 275th anniversary, has contributed much to the horse-racing industry on the island of Ireland, and the area has exported not only thoroughbreds but many jockeys and trainers to the industry here in Britain.
	Speaking as the representative of a constituency with a substantial horse-racing industry, which contributes to the local economy and to tourism, I want to see more regulation of the betting industry. That would protect both that industry and the horse-racing industry. I am aware that horse racing in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, but the local betting industry is being undermined by offshore betting, and my constituents and I would deeply appreciate any discussions that could take place with the Irish horse racing board and the Irish Government.
	The funding of racing in both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland depends on returns from the betting industry. In both jurisdictions, research has demonstrated that it has decreased significantly owing to the amount of business that is directed offshore. As the hon. Member for West Suffolk pointed out, the offshore betting industry, which includes both betting exchanges and some of the larger bookmaking chains, is taking advantage of loopholes in the system to avoid making a fair contribution. For example, online businesses allow firms to locate a server offshore in places such as the Isle of Man, Malta and Gibraltar, and route the bets by means of "phone to server". A bet then becomes that country's bet for tax purposes, as a result of the William Hill judgment in the European Court of Justice.
	Those problems need to be addressed, because they are having an impact on our local industry. They have implications for jobs, and for all involved in the horse-racing industry. Many of us hold that industry very dear, because we represent rural constituencies of which horse racing is a central part.

Duncan Hames: I agree with the hon. Lady's critique of levy avoidance, but does she agree with me-and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) and the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson)-that any measures to tackle it should not fall disproportionately on small betting shops or, indeed, small groups of bookmakers?

Margaret Ritchie: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am about to deal with that very point.
	The larger bookmaking chains argue that they have moved offshore in a bid to compete with the betting exchanges. Betting exchanges allow unlicensed individuals to lay bets and to incur no gross profits tax or associated costs on their winnings. Like the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), I fear that the smaller bookmakers and gambling establishments in rural towns throughout the United Kingdom and Ireland are deeply affected by that, because the current legislation and, perhaps, the regulations governing it are out of date and do not take on board offshore and online betting. I understand that in the UK, Betfair, one of the online systems, pays duty on the commission that it charges, and that the commission ranges from 2% to 5% of winnings depending on individual turnover. Last week I met representatives of the bookmaking industry on the island of Ireland. They expressed those very concerns, and they were very pleased that we would be debating the issue in the House, because they wanted an opportunity to ensure that their views were articulated here.
	I hope that we on the island of Ireland will be able to undertake further exports such as that of A. P. McCoy, whom I congratulate as a person from County Antrim who has done exceedingly well as a jockey, has made an enormous contribution, and has been an excellent ambassador to the horse-racing industry. However, I agree with other Members that the industry needs a sustainable future.
	I ask the Minister to consider all the points I have made. I also ask him to make appropriate representations to, and hold appropriate discussions with, his opposite number in the Irish Cabinet as soon as possible to ensure that the industry on both islands has that sustainable future, because it makes a marked contribution to the local economy and also to tourism.

Anne McIntosh: As this is the first debate in which I have participated in my capacity as the newly elected Member for Thirsk and Malton, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to my predecessor in the Ryedale and Filey part of the constituency. John Greenway was a stalwart of the racing industry, and the immediate predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) as one of the co-chairmen of the all-party parliamentary racing and bloodstock industries group.
	The new constituency resulting from the marriage between Thirsk and Malton and Filey contains 31 trainers with nearly 1,000 horses. Given that each trainer will probably employ one member of staff per 3.5 horses, about 270 people are directly employed by trainers. Obviously that excludes those in ancillary professions, such as vets, and many businesses.
	Although the subject of the debate-which I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) has managed to secure-is the future of the horse racing levy, I hope that it will be inextricably linked with the issue of a vibrant future for the horse racing industry per se. As a number of Members have pointed out, the industry is struggling. Trainers in particular feel that they are in severe financial straits. I referred earlier, in an intervention, to the reduction in prize money, and a Member representing a Scottish seat mentioned rising fuel costs. The cost of diesel is at a record high in north Yorkshire, and, as we have already heard, it is pushing up the costs of transporting horses, jockeys and stable lads and lasses to race meetings.

Philip Davies: My horses are trained in my hon. Friend's constituency. I think that this is the first time that Mr Michael Easterby, who has the pleasure of training them, has been described as being in dire financial straits. However, I am sure that he would agree with my hon. Friend, even if no one else would.
	Nearly 50% of betting shops make a profit of less than £17,000 a year. Does my hon. Friend have some regard to their dire financial straits as well?

Anne McIntosh: My hon. Friend's horses are obviously in the right place. I can imagine no better place than north Yorkshire in which to train them, and I hope that that is reflected in their success.
	I do not know whether time will permit me to deal with betting shops. Small independent betting shops and chains of betting shops obviously exist in market towns such as Thirsk, Malton, Filey and Easingwold in an average constituency such as mine, but they have alternative means of making a living. They increasingly provide one-armed bandits and other forms of betting, not least on the outcomes of political elections.

Justin Tomlinson: I met an independent bookmaker who is responsible for 11 bookmakers, including some in my constituency. The changes to the threshold rules might mean an increase of 78% in their levy contributions. A lot of extra alternative sources of income would have to be found to allow that business to remain viable.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and perhaps I should say that trainers are struggling financially, rather than that they are in severe financial straits. This is also about the ability of trainers, on an ongoing basis, to sell their wares and persuade the horse owners to stay with the industry, which obviously they love, rather than investing in other areas. Nobody has yet focused on feeding costs, which are putting up the cost of training the horses. The reduction in prize money has been mentioned and I hope that the Minister will address it. I also add that trainers are major employers in rural areas and their businesses support countless other businesses in rural communities, as the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) mentioned, so it is vital that they are seen to have a fair return on that.
	I welcome the fact that this debate has touched on the importance of racing to the fabric of rural life-to the economic, social and cultural way of life in the countryside-which is particularly true in North Yorkshire. Yorkshire boasts some of the finest racecourses in the country, not least those at Thirsk and neighbouring Wetherby and York. Like all the other 60 racecourses, the one at Thirsk plays a vital role in the local economy, providing employment not only for its staff, but for trainers, jockeys, stable lads and lasses, farriers, vets and breeders. Malton is an internationally renowned racehorse training centre and, along with Thirsk, is home to some of the country's top racehorse trainers. As I have mentioned, more than 30 trainers are based in just one constituency.
	The hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) used to be the Minister responsible for this subject, but I put this question to the current Minister: is it possible to replace the levy by a £1 per shop race fee to raise £90 million per year? The right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) made a serious point. I was an intern, as we now call such people-they were rather glamorously called "stagiaires" when I was one-in the Directorate General for Competition for some six months. I understand that for a levy to count as state aid it would have to be shown that there was a direct subsidy to an industry in one member state and thus a disadvantaging of industries in other member states. The right hon. Gentleman and others told us that levies were being sought in other countries as well, so I hope our case will be put, including by some of our powerful colleagues on both sides of the other House who will be able to advise us in this regard. I do not have much sympathy with the argument that the proposed changes to the levy are state aid or would distort trade between member states. I take some comfort from the fact that all of us who take an interest in the industry can reach out to the industry in other member states, using our good offices to make these points to the Commission.
	My second plea to the Minister, which other hon. Members have also made, is to keep the Tote within racing. I pay tribute to the previous Government's acknowledgement of the vital importance of racing, which is undermined by the arguments about state aid. I have addressed that matter and I hope that we can take it forward.
	The third point I wish to make to the Minister relates to a proposal to close all the loopholes being exploited by bookmakers and the betting exchanges in order to raise £60 million a year via a percentage deduction transaction fee on all bets on the exchanges. As I said, I represent a host of betting shops and I take some comfort from the fact that the manager of one of them has written to me in the context of this debate. He said:
	"The current issues facing the Horserace Betting Levy are less to do with the total amount generated by the levy and more to do with how it, and other income streams, are distributed within Racing."
	That issue has to be addressed. He continued by saying:
	"I...support the 'minimum tariffs' initiative recently announced by the Horsemen's Group".
	I wish to place on the record my tribute to the work of that organisation and its pan-industry view, and I hope that its voice will be heard on this matter.
	I do not believe that a positive way to bring the industry together is by thinking that the trainers, racehorse owners and all those employed in the industry are on one side, and the betting shops and gamblers are on the other. The danger to the system-this is the challenge the Minister will face-is the offshore aspect, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk referred. Addressing that situation is the purpose of today's debate.
	I conclude by saying that all hon. Members who have racecourses and the racing industry represented as strongly in their constituency as I do in mine benefit from such a committed industry. I wish to pay tribute to the fact that racecourses attract enormous amounts of tourism; small racecourses such as Thirsk's are very attractive. Obviously it meets mostly in the summer months-we avoid the winter months-when the evening meetings are particularly well subscribed, as are the weekend meetings. I also wish to lend my support to point-to-pointing, which has an enormous attraction in rural communities and allows amateur jockeys to benefit. I invite the Minister to recognise the all-pervasive nature, in a very positive sense, of the racing industry. I understand the particularly difficult position that he is in, but I hope that, through him, we can avail ourselves of the good offices of the Secretary of State to make the case in the strongest way to the European Commission and to ensure that all aspects of the racing and gambling industry have a vibrant long-term future.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Dawn Primarolo: Order. May I remind hon. Members that seven Members wish to speak and I will be calling the Front Benchers to make the wind-ups at 2.40 pm? There may be an eight-minute time limit, but if every Member is considerate of their colleagues and makes much shorter speeches, and perhaps if those itching to make interventions decide not to do so, we will be able to get everybody in.

George Freeman: I shall be as quick as I can. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on securing this important debate and remind us all that thousands of people in the racing industry are watching us closely in the hope that we will be able to contribute to a settlement.
	Mid Norfolk is not a racing constituency, but I wish to major on two key points, the first of which is the importance of racing at its grass roots in the rural economy. My constituency is adjacent to Fakenham racecourse, which is a magnificent centre of racing in Norfolk. A large number of my constituents follow racing closely and there is a strong link with the farming community. Through the magnificent West Norfolk Foxhounds and the local point-to-point facilities, racing at its grass roots is embedded in the rural economy and does not exist in isolation.
	My second interest is a personal one, and I hope that the House will indulge me. I grew up in and around Newmarket in a racing family. As some of the more senior Members of the House who follow the sport may know, my father stormed to victory in the 1958 grand national on a brave Irish gelding called Mr What. My uncle served for many years as chairman of the then British Bloodstock Agency and my brother trains in north America, along with a large number of people who want to get into this industry, some of whom do not find it that easy. I have spent some time on the back stretch in America and Canada and have seen how different industries around the world are structured.
	My hon. Friend referred to the heritage of racing. The fact that racing is not just an industry is an important point. Racing sits at the heart of what it means to be British: people who do not follow racing have surely heard of Red Rum and Desert Orchid; Bob Champion and the story of Aldaniti is a national legend; and Frankie Dettori is a national figure. I defy those who have not been to a point-to-point meeting, to Cheltenham or the Guineas meeting to say different; people are aware of racing and its part in our national heritage and history.
	This afternoon, we are principally discussing racing as an industry-as a business. I want to make the point that it is an important national business. At a time when the Government are rightly putting a lot of emphasis on rebalancing the economy and doing everything they can to promote business and growth beyond the City of London, this giant industry is struggling and we would be well advised to help it. It generates more than 100,000 jobs and a turnover of more than £3.5 billion, as well as a huge local underpinning of that through the trickle-down to farriers, vets and those who sell clothing and equipment-all the secondary industries that feed racing.
	So what is the problem? The racing industry as we have grown to know and love it is unsustainable. Its financing model is broken. It is incumbent on all of us who care about it as an industry and about our economy to tackle that. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk and others have spoken at more length and with more expertise than I on the nature of the broken financing system. I want merely to point out three things. In France, the return from betting to the industry is, I believe, in the order of €700 million a year, whereas in Britain it is in the order of £30 million to £35 million. The levy contribution to racing is falling from £100 million to £60 million-a huge drop. The return from betting to racing, expressed as a ratio percentage, is about 1%. In Japan it is 5%, and in America 8%. That is an unsustainable platform for the industry that we have a duty to tackle.
	The crucial and central point is that those who depend on racing have a duty-and an interest in that duty-to ensure that it is sustainable. Too many people have been taking too much out and not putting enough in. To stretch a metaphor, rather than force-feeding the goose that lays the golden egg, we are neglecting her. The truth is that one cannot push, as the betting industry has, for more meetings-that is totally understandable, as they want more product-and lower prize money. The industry cannot sustain that. That is symptomatic of the situation across a number of fields of modern life and in other sports. We concentrate too much on the top of the pyramid and neglect the grassroots. We neglect the smaller meetings, smaller tracks and smaller trainers and owners that prop up the more celebrated, well known and better off ones at the top. We do so at our peril.
	I have spoken to a number of trainers and those involved in racing in the past few days and weeks. A number of them made the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh): with the cost of living and fuel prices rising as fast as they are, a number of smaller owners and trainers cannot even afford to get to the races; it simply does not make sense when prize money is as low as it is. Of course, one group of people who suffer from that underinvestment at the top when horses are winning races, which by definition most do not, are those at the bottom-the often lowly paid stable lads and others who prop up the industry. We cannot properly improve the quality of their lives and incomes without improving the prize money at the top. It says something about the state of the industry when a legend as highly regarded and skilled as Pat Eddery decides that the game is not worth the candle.
	Accelerating my speech, I want to support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk about the importance of some new settlement for the industry. I urge the Minister to take those comments very seriously. I have worked in biomedical research, where intellectual property rights sit at the heart of the industry, protecting the interests of those at the bottom. That concept works well and I commend it to the House. It could give us a chance to create a new settlement for this great industry and ensure that it is sustainable for the generations that follow.

Peter Aldous: I congratulate my fellow Suffolk MP, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), on securing this debate. It provides me with an opportunity to participate in a debate on the future of a sport in which I have had a lifelong interest. At the outset I should mention some non-declarable interests.
	Although I am not a horse breeder, I am a member of the Thoroughbred Breeders Association so that I can receive its useful publications, and for many years I have been an annual member at Newmarket.
	I have gone racing in other countries and although days at Santa Anita, Saratoga and Longchamp are never to be forgotten, nothing quite matches what is on offer in Britain, whether it is at Aintree or Epsom, the homes of our two most famous races, under the trees of the pre-paddock at Newmarket or at the very special atmosphere at the Cheltenham Festival, which commentators such as Hugh McIlvanney have observed has no equal in the sporting world.
	What has always intrigued me is that British racing has continued to lead the world despite the very low levels of prize money on offer. In national hunt racing, I think that that is because the love and passion for both the spectacle and the horse is ingrained in so many people, while in flat racing the prestige associated with winning the major races means that there is a clear incentive for the major international players to continue to race here. At this stage, I should mention the Maktoum family and Khalid Abdullah, as well as other owners who have made such an enormous contribution to and investment in British racing over the past 30 years. Without them, racing would have faced its day of reckoning much earlier.
	Some might say that that day of reckoning has not arrived and that racing has cried wolf before and has always survived and carried on. It is wrong to say that now. Prize money has fallen to such a low level that urgent action is required. Without decent prize money at all levels, owners will leave the sport, trainers will give up and grooms who work in the yards will be laid off or will have to work harder for a wage that certainly cannot be described as "living". It is prize money that oils racing's wheels and keeps the whole show on the road.
	Although I was born in 1961 and do not have a full knowledge of the negotiations that took place then, in my view the levy was flawed from the outset. I accept, however, that I say that with the benefit of hindsight. In most other racing countries, there is a monopoly whereby all revenue derived from pool betting goes back into racing. As a result, in those countries, the majority of racing's revenue comes from betting.
	The yield from the levy has fallen dramatically from £115 million in 2007-08 to £65 million in 2010-11. The British Horseracing Authority says that action is needed in four key areas to ensure that racing gets a fair return on its product. I shall consider each in turn. First, the betting exchanges that have grown up in recent years should pay a proper commercial return to British racing. To me, that argument is compelling. Secondly, bookmakers who have moved their operations offshore should be included in the levy. Again, that sounds logical to me: if they are using a British racing product they should pay for it. However, I note from today's  Racing Post that such a move might be open to legal challenge. Thirdly, horse racing wants to abolish the threshold rule that currently exempts 60% of betting shops from paying the full rate of the levy. If the major bookmakers are exploiting that loophole to avoid paying their full dues, it is right that the anomaly should be addressed. However, one should have regard to the plight of the smaller independent shops, which, like so many high street traders, are struggling. They should receive some assistance to help them compete against their larger rivals. Finally, British racing wants to reinstate payments for customers in Britain placing bets on overseas racing. I want to receive more information on that argument as my immediate reaction is that overseas racing is not the industry's product to sell.
	Although racing has a strong case to receive a higher price for its product, it needs to look at the package that it provides, not only to meet the requirements of its buyer, the betting industry, but to look after the interests of its various component parts, whether that is racecourses, owners, breeders, trainers, jockeys or-not to be forgotten -the stable staff who keep the whole show on the road in often trying circumstances and very poor weather.
	To be fair, racing has not done a bad job in recent years. As reported in today's  Racing Post , just under 5.8 million people went racing in 2010, a rise of 0.9% on 2009 despite the bad weather that wiped out most racing in December. The various racing festivals that take place throughout the year remain extremely popular and are well marketed. There are also those courses that show imagination and flair and put on other attractions, such as music, that help them to attract large crowds to their meetings. Newmarket "nights" are a must on the East Anglian social calendar.
	More needs to be done to enhance racing's attraction and to look after the interests of those working in the industry. The following areas could be considered. First, the fixture list needs to be reviewed. Too much racing is being put on to please the bookmakers at present, which has led to an increase in racing's cost without a commensurate increase in income. The cost of policing has risen from £16.2 million in 2002-03, to £25 million in 2009-10. In the same period, owners paid an additional £6.5 million in increased transport costs. Having wall-to-wall racing in the afternoon, at dusk and at night, seven days a week, places unreasonable pressure on those who work in the industry. Racing needs to have regard to sustainability. We need a fixture list with a good spread of meetings across the country each day. On opening the paper in the morning, one often finds meetings at Lingfield, Ascot, Warwick and Wolverhampton. Racing needs to go across the country on a daily basis and an all-weather course in the north should be considered, as should a day off once a month, perhaps on a Monday.
	One of the main attractions of British racing is the large number of diverse courses-60 in total, all of which are unique in their own way-but racing must look at ways of rewarding those courses that show ingenuity and imagination in putting on attractive meetings. It should also look at ways of rewarding courses that look after themselves through promotion and sponsorship, invest in their facilities and do not just rely on the levy. The days of the levy junkie should come to an end.
	There is also a need to look at ways of making racing more appealing to the public. Perhaps bullet races over two to three furlongs could be considered as racing's version of 20/20.
	That brings me to the way forward, the future and my conclusions. There is no one simple solution to the host of problems that need to be addressed. First, the levy should be abolished and replaced with a fair funding mechanism that collects from as broad a base as possible. Secondly, the Government should work with racing and the betting industries to establish which methods of payment are permissible from a legal viewpoint, and they should negotiate with the EU as necessary. In the forthcoming sale of the Tote, the Government must do all they can to look after the best interests of racing. I would like to see the Tote run by racing for racing.

Ian Swales: Each of our sixty racecourses plays a vital role in the local economy, providing employment and a social hub. My local course at Redcar attracts people from far and wide and is particularly attractive to trainers who like our flat, straight mile. The course is right in the middle of the town, so any threat to it would not just cause an economic problem but might become an environmental issue.
	Racing and betting are inextricably linked. The sport's fixture list, scheduling, volume and even rules are largely dictated by bookmakers. Last year, I tabled an early-day motion with wording very similar to that in the motion. It was given the number 999, strangely enough, which was very appropriate because this is an urgent problem. I shall not repeat statistics others have given, but I shall mention one that has not been given: some 5.8 million people a year attend race meetings, so it is a huge spectator sport. It is imperative that the mechanism to transfer value between betting and racing is brought up to date and gives sufficient protection to local racecourses. As we have heard, the levy contribution to prize money is falling dramatically this year, down to £65 million. Redcar's prize money is being cut by 50%, which is a massive problem for the management at the racecourse. As we have heard, smaller racecourses face cuts of up to two thirds and are therefore clearly under threat.
	Another important area that has not been mentioned but could be seriously affected is the number and pattern of fixtures, particularly at smaller courses. There has been a reduction from £6.9 million in 2009 to £2.1 million in 2011 in the fixture incentive scheme, which is paid to racecourses to incentivise them to hold fixtures on days when gate receipts are low. They do that so that bookmakers and the levy have a continuous horse race betting product. Some racecourses might abandon those important bookmaker and levy-friendly fixtures and move fixtures to Saturday afternoons, for example, when gate receipts would be higher. However, that would starve other parts of the week and bookmakers might have a problem with that.
	If things do not change, there will certainly be a reduction in the annual fixture list of perhaps 400 fixtures next year, as they would not be financially viable for racecourses. That would further reduce the levy to the Horserace Betting Levy Board, clearly risking a vicious circle. The loopholes we have heard about cost racing millions of pounds a year. It is especially important that the threshold from which more than 60% of betting shops benefit should be reviewed rather than scrapped-I agree with that point. The vast majority of those shops are, indeed, owned by major operations. It is equally important to address the offshore betting issue.
	The Tote should continue to operate as a pooled betting system. We see such systems in pretty much every other racing country in the world, and it is worth remembering that in some countries that have successful racing industries, a Tote-style system is sometimes the only legitimate form of betting. The chief executive of my local racecourse has pointed out that before we sell the Tote we should ask ourselves who owns it. The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has previously stated his desire to
	"ensure that funding for racing is fair, and collected from as broad a base as possible."-[ Official Report, 8 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 41W.]
	Unless the levy is reformed, we cannot claim that either of those criteria is being met.
	It is worth considering what might happen if we do not address the dramatic decline in the levy. In many ways a chain would be set up, many aspects of which would be irreversible. There might be racecourse closures with owners walking away. Some owners, including leading international owners on the flat, might transfer their horses to other countries, especially France, and other owners, especially at the lower end, would leave the industry. Some breeders might choose to go out of business or produce fewer foals, all of which would lead to a smaller industry with direct job losses to jockeys, trainers and stable staff, as well as indirect job losses in dependent businesses, including bookmakers. Local racecourses are often at the centre of their communities.
	While methods of betting have advanced and become more modern, the levy has remained stagnant and become outdated. It needs to be urgently revised if we are to maintain this country's fine racing reputation and heritage. I understand the Secretary of State's stated wish to remove his Department from this issue, but the Government's historical involvement in the Tote and levy system means that they cannot just walk away. It is imperative that they leave an effective and sustainable system that will protect the diversity of racing in this country for the long term.

Robin Walker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on securing the debate and I support the many excellent points that he and other hon. Members made. I thank him particularly for mentioning Worcester. I am fortunate to have in my constituency one of England's best-loved racecourses and to represent one of the few cities to have a racecourse right at its heart. Members of a literary bent will be interested to know that it recently featured heavily in Jilly Cooper's blockbuster, "Jump!"
	The Pitchcroft racecourse in Worcester has seen racing for more than 200 years and provides vital green space at the centre of the city. It is one of the many wonderful things about Worcester that the city is rich in green spaces-not just formal parks but woodland, playing fields, the prettiest cricket ground in England and one of its finest racecourses. As the Member of Parliament for Worcester, I have vowed to protect those green spaces, and ensuring our racecourse remains viable is an important part of that.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend's inspirational words about green spaces take me to the Beverley Westwood, which has been protected by the pasture masters of Beverley for hundreds of years and prevented from being developed, and in it sits the famous Beverley racecourse. So, like him, I wish to see the racing industry and our racecourses maintained for the benefit of the environment and the economy of the areas in which we live.

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.
	Like other Members, I feel I should declare a non-declarable interest at this point, because although I have no personal connection with either the racing or the betting industry, my sister worked for many years as a groom and horse exerciser for a race yard in Shropshire. Being horse mad, a competitive spirit and one of life's natural risk-takers, she relished the opportunity to work with difficult horses and became a specialist in retraining some of the most challenging, not to say dangerous, horses in racing. Like many people in the industry, she worked for very low wages to pursue a passion. That passion is shared by many of my constituents who enjoy a day at the races at Pitchcroft and make the most of the public amenity provided by the racecourse.
	Meetings at Worcester regularly attract up to 3,000 race-goers and are popular with local residents as well as visitors from miles around. On Derby day, Pitchcroft can attract crowds of up to 7,000. That brings business to the city, with people shopping and dining out after their day's racing, and can be a major economic boost for Worcester. The course provides not only racing, but an important venue for meetings, conferences, Worcester's annual Campaign for Real Ale beer festival, and many charitable events. However, all this is under threat for two reasons. The first, which is beyond ministerial control, is the power and might of the River Severn. The second is the decline in the levy.
	Confident as I am in the Minister's powers, I would not ask him, Canute-like, to turn back the waters of the River Severn. However, I would ask him to take note of the special circumstances in which it places Worcester's racecourse. The very fact that it is on the flood plain is perhaps what has protected this green space in the heart of the city from development, but it also brings its challenges. Most years, there is some flooding of the course, and that can lead to cancelled races and days lost. However, in the summer of 2007, when Worcester was struck by its worst floods in decades, the racecourse was submerged under feet of water for many weeks. Major flooding of this sort has made plans to upgrade facilities and a one-time plan to invest in a course-side hotel unviable, and has posed a major financial headache for the course's management. As a result, Worcester is probably more dependent than many other racecourses on the money it receives via the levy to make racing sustainable and to attract trainers with prize money.
	It is tragic, therefore, that this course of all courses should have suffered the biggest single cut in levy funding of any course in the country. The £300,000 reduction this year in Worcester's levy funding for prize money represents not merely the average 38% cut, nor the 61% cut that one of my hon. Friends mentioned, but a massive 68% cut in the funding from the levy board, and poses a significant risk to the long-term financial viability of the course and the many trainers, stables and jobs that it supports. In a period where racing attendances have been higher, and where the overall betting on British horse racing has remained strong, it seems extraordinary that we should see such cuts, and for a racecourse as popular and well attended as Worcester, for all its challenges, it seems deeply unfair.
	Horse Racing UK has set out a four-step programme that it believes could replace over £100 million of revenue lost by the levy board. My ambition is more simple: to stem the sharp decline that has seen the levy yield almost halve since 2004, and Worcester suffer even more. Clearly there is a challenge for racecourse owners and managers to make up revenue in other ways as well-commercialising pictures and using the opportunities presented by the internet to grow their own revenues-but it is reasonable that the betting industry should pay its fair share. I urge the Minister, as he looks into these matters, to ensure that there is a system in place to make all bookmakers pay their fair share for the benefits that racing brings them. I note the cross-party interest that we have heard during this debate in the idea of a racing right. Any solution should take into account the need to maintain a diversity of courses in different locations around the country, to support those courses, such as Worcester, where racing has taken place for generations, and which support a wide network of racing stables, and to rebuild a healthier relationship between the gambling and the racing industries.
	I share with the Secretary of State the disappointment that he has expressed that these two industries were unable to agree a mutually beneficial settlement this year, and I applaud his belief in free markets and his intention to remove Government intervention from the process. However, I would urge both the Secretary of State and the Minister, who will be looking at a new system of funding, to come up with solutions that take account of both the challenges and the opportunities of an online world, and make racing viable, not just for this year, but for hundreds of years to come.

Guy Opperman: I must declare an interest at the outset as a jockey. I hold a category B amateur rider's licence. As hon. Members will see as I strain to do up my jacket, I have a bit of problem. I blame Gordon Brown and the last election for many things, but in particular it put a stone on my weight, such that the winners I rode in 2009 I could not necessarily ride today. I have ridden out for and helped a variety of trainers, including Stan Mellor, Brendan Powell, Bob Turnell and Tim Reed. I probably would not have got through my school days had I not been able to run a small bookmakers at my school, aged 12, where the Friday ration of unlicensed booty was other children's sweets, which seemed miraculously to find their way into my pocket. I represent the wonderful constituency of Hexham. It is over 1,000 square miles and an especially wild and wonderful place, with, I venture to suggest, a better racecourse than those of Cheltenham and Liverpool, and all the others that proclaim that they are great.
	This is a pivotal time. Racing is one of the most important, successful and world-renowned sports, and that can be said of few sports today. One would be unable to list more than five sports in which we are at the top of the tree, which we definitely are in racing. The levy has assisted in that, but if we fail to support it at this crucial time we will, without a shadow of a doubt, become far less successful and will regret the day we made that decision. We are 38th in the league tables-leagues tables are very popular these days-but that is a very poor place to be. The 1% return on investment compares with 5% in Japan and 8% in the USA.
	Everyone accepts that it is an outdated model, and businesses exploit it. One could talk at length about the great merits of Betfair and others. I was certainly interested to receive a letter recently from a gentleman called Mr Hawkswood, who represents the Remote Gambling Association, a particularly august organisation that represents more than 30 internationally recognised remote operators. To us, that means that they are offshore and do not pay any of the wages or individual contributions that we would like to see, and that is to the detriment of racing. I particularly like the following point that he made. He said that if we change the law that
	"would be in breach of EU law and open to challenge in the courts."
	He was also quoted extensively in this morning's Racing Post. If that is the case, bring it on, because we need to stand up for racing. A failure to do so would lead to a much lesser thing.
	Every one of us could identify important race courses. I have ridden at Hexham, Cheltenham, Kempton and many others. There has been a 58% fall in individual receipts at Hexham, and a 60% fall at Towcester-I will never forget the scary down-hill fence there. The reality is that those courses are really struggling and need our support. I believe that the offshore situation is key. Either we address this, get organised and make the point, or we will really struggle. We must also look at betting exchanges. These issues are of prime importance. Simply doing nothing on an ongoing basis is a non-starter.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) and I started making that case in the Adjournment debate before Christmas, and he has done very well. He made the point that there is a real need for a racing right. Whether one calls it a sports betting right or a racing right, the bottom line is that the ability to run this on an ongoing basis is absolutely key. If we do not get supportive of this, with a cross-sport application of the individual things it involves, we will struggle. It is of prime importance that we do that. The present system might be broken and facing great difficulty in the way ahead, but we must address that on an ongoing basis. To fail to do so would be to fail the greatest thing, in terms of sport, that we have ever produced.

Philip Davies: I appreciate that time is short and so will be brief, although I will probably be the only Member to argue on the other side of what we have heard today. I should declare an interest as a former bookmaker, although I have no interest in bookmaking any more. I do, however, have an interest as an owner and breeder of horses and as someone who contributes to bookmakers' profits.
	Considering that background, one might assume that I would want the maximum amount of income to be given to the racing industry from bookmakers, but I take exactly the opposite view. One reason why is that, as an owner, on the rare occasions when my horse manages to win a race, I know that the last thing I am interested in is how much prize money it has won. That is not even a factor in my hobby: it is a hobby, and I do not expect other people to subsidise it; I expect to pay for it myself.
	The reason I am not interested in prize money levels is that in the 2009 flat racing season, one fifth of the £71 million prize money pot was concentrated in the hands of just 10 owners, many of them not just millionaires but billionaires. My hon. Friends failed to mention that, and why on earth we should want poor people in betting shops to subsidise the hobby and sport of immensely rich people throughout the world is beyond me. The bookmakers give as much money now to the racing industry as they have done in recent years, because of TV rights, yet they take less and less money on the sport.
	I shall briefly touch on Betfair and betting exchanges, because the other side of the argument has to be put. People cannot operate as traditional bookmakers on Betfair. A bookmaker-I should know; I was one-takes bets on any horse in the race at the prices fed through from the racecourse, but on Betfair they would go out of business in two seconds if they tried that approach, because there is no margin. They can lay only individual horses, or two horses in a race at the most. If someone bets against a horse, however, it is just the same as betting for a horse: they act as a punter, not as a bookmaker; and it would be absolutely outrageous if punters on Betfair began to be treated as bookmakers.
	The arguments of the racing industry and independent members of the levy board do not hold water. They have first decided how much money racing should get, and then tried to find some way of raising it, but that is like saying, "I've decided how much money I'm spending next year, and I need a 25% pay rise." The world does not work like that. We should decide on a fair mechanism by which bookmakers can pay the money, and racing, like everybody else in this age of austerity, should cut its cloth accordingly.

Ian Austin: This has been an absolutely fascinating debate. Today we have seen the House doing exactly what it should do: examining a complex and detailed issue from all sides of the argument. Members from both sides have demonstrated real, detailed expertise. Let us look at the previous two speeches: one from someone who has run a bookmakers; and the other from someone who participated in the sport as a jockey. How many other debates enable hon. Members from both sides to bring personal and detailed knowledge of a complex issue to the House? It has been absolutely brilliant.
	We have heard people speak up on behalf of residents and businesses in their constituencies, whether racing fans or trainers, operators of betting shops or racecourses, owners or others who make such a huge contribution to the economy. So, let me congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on securing this debate. It is fair to say that we have heard him stand up for the interests of his constituency, and for the jobs and prosperity that racing brings to Newmarket.
	We have heard fascinating contributions from all parts of the House, and it is no surprise that so many Members have taken part, when we consider the hugely important role that horse racing plays in Britain's sporting and cultural life. With about 60 racecourses throughout the country and annual attendances of well over 5 million, it contributes about £3.5 billion directly to the economy, providing 100,000 direct and indirect jobs and generating £325 million in taxes.
	Horse racing plays a major role in the tourism industry, attracting visitors from around the world to major events such as the grand national, the Derby, Royal Ascot and the Cheltenham festival, as well as of course to Hexham, Worcester and so on, as we have heard. What is more, it is a truly global sport, but one in which Britain plays a leading role, with world-class courses, training, breeding, bloodstocks and sales.
	The intrinsic link between racing and betting means that, in every country where the two take place, there is a mechanism to allow funding to go from the betting industry to support the racing industry. Here in the UK, the levy was established in 196l, and today it funds prize money for participants, the governance of the sport, the maintenance of its standards, veterinary science, training programmes, racecourses and other matters concerned with horse breeds and standards of care.
	The levy is based on the betting industry contributing 10% of its gross profits to British horse racing. It is set by the Horserace Betting Levy Board, which has not so far been able to arrive at an agreement for next year, meaning that the Government are due to take the decision imminently, although the Secretary of State has said, like others before him to be fair, that this is the last time he wants the Government to make the decision.
	In 2003-04, the levy contributed £110 million to racing, but that declined over the next three years to £99 million, and to £65 million this year as betting preferences have changed to new forms of gambling, and some betting has moved offshore. Racing argues that these developments have hit the sport hard, and that has led to the identification of several areas that would address the problems and increase the income received from the betting industry. The betting industry, on the other hand, argues that the amount that it contributes through having the right to broadcast races through media or picture rights and sponsorship has increased over the same period, and says that the total amount from the levy, TV picture rights and sponsorship payments from betting to racing has remained stable in recent years. The average total of these payments was £164 million between 2006 and 2010, and in 2010 it remained at £160 million, as the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) pointed out.
	As we have heard, this is a hugely detailed and complex issue. The horse racing industry, bookmakers and other interested parties have widely differing views about how betting should fund racing and by what amount. As the Government consider how to put the relationship between betting and racing on the stable footing for the long term that we all want to see, and to decide what contribution bookmakers and others should make to the sport, there are a number of questions and areas on which we would like further detail or clarification. For example, can the Minister tell us what assessment the Government have made of the impact on the growth of offshore betting on the racing industry? When will the Government announce their response to and the outcome of the document, "Consultation on Regulatory Future of Remote Gambling in Great Britain", which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) launched last year and which concluded in June?
	Betting is taking place in a different context as a result of new technology and the resulting globalisation of the industry, and that has had a major impact on the sport as a whole, its structure and its finances. What discussion has the Minister had with the Treasury about the sport and the betting industry over the past few months? Is he considering no longer permittingbetting operators to advertise to and transact with British consumers in a way that allows them to avoid the levy?

Matthew Hancock: Do Labour Front Benchers support a racing right?

Ian Austin: I shall come to our views shortly. Our role at this point, four and a half years away from an election, is to listen to all sides of the argument, as in this debate, and to interested parties outside, and that is what I want to do. Then, at some point, we will arrive at a view. The Government are going to make this decision in the next few months. [Hon. Members: "What do you think?"] I think it is my job to listen to all sides of the argument, to ask the Government questions about their intentions, and at some point-not now, with four and a half years to go until an election-to arrive at a view on this and on all sorts of other issues.
	What consideration has the Minister given to ensuring that betting exchanges and the professional bookmakers who use them, but do not pay full tax and levy, make an adequate contribution to British racing, or the same contribution to British racing as the rest of the onshore betting industry?
	Several right hon. and hon. Members have queried the threshold rules introduced by the previous Government. Does the Minister believe that those should be altered? Racing argues that payments for customers in Britain who place bets on racing overseas should be reinstated. The betting industry argues that thresholds were previously reduced substantially in exchange for removing the levy on foreign racing, and that it would be odd to charge a levy payable to British racing on events that are nothing to do with British racing. What thought has the Minister given to this issue?
	Labour Members recognise the enormous contribution that horse racing makes to Britain and to so many of its communities in so many ways, particularly in rural areas, and we want to see the sport strengthened and placed on a secure and stable financial footing for the long term. Our manifesto promised that as betting on sport increases, we would bring forward measures for consultation on generating a fair return to sport based on a contribution from the profits of the betting industry. We will work with the levy board to ensure that all operators taking bets on British races pay to support British horse racing.
	As I have said, the Government have to establish next year's levy, but we want a wide-ranging discussion that develops proposals to put racing on to a secure financial footing for the long term. We believe that ordinary racing fans want to see racing thrive in Britain, funded by the industry's profits. We want plans to be developed to reform and modernise the funding arrangements for racing.
	The Labour Government made the commitment that half the proceeds from the sale of the Tote would go back into racing. We also want the Tote, under future arrangements, to make a permanent contribution to racing. We want its ownership to be transferred into safe hands to ensure racing's financial future.
	I will conclude my remarks on that point to give the Minister his full 10 minutes. I congratulate again the hon. Member for West Suffolk on securing this debate, and all hon. Members who have taken part in what I have found to be a fascinating and informative discussion.

John Penrose: To begin, I echo a common thread throughout the debate by congratulating the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock)-I nearly called him the Member for Newmarket, but his constituency is of course broader than that. I also congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on choosing what is clearly a well selected debate, given the breadth, depth and variety of the contributions. That shows what an important issue this is.
	The motion calls for the Government to come forward with proposals by the end of the year. I am happy to accept that as the challenge and the target, and we will aim to meet it. I cannot make announcements right now, it being only January. The consultation that was kicked off by the last Government has been completed and there were a large number of submissions on the future of remote gambling and offshore gambling, which is a broader issue than the horse race betting levy, but is nonetheless important to the levy. We will respond to that consultation, and I am currently in the process of considering the responses.
	A range of other interests have been laid out ably and well in this debate. I will not recap them all, partly due to lack of time. I want to ensure that I respond to some of the points that were made, rather than just repeat them. It is absolutely right for the House to urge the Government to come up with concrete proposals before the end of the year, and I am happy to accept that challenge, in line with the mood of the House.
	I will have to tread a little carefully because, as I said, we are still considering the details of our proposals. I am happy to give as much detail as I can on the direction of thinking and the principles that underlie what has to be done, but beyond that, I shall rely on a quotation from Alan Greenspan, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve in America, who said in a speech to the Economic Club of New York in 1988, when asked about the future direction of interest rates, on which he was obviously not allowed to opine:
	"I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said."
	I will be a little careful on that basis.
	What I can say on the principles underlying this matter is that it is absolutely right, as everybody has agreed, that there is a strong symbiotic relationship between racing and bookmaking, and rightly so. It is clear that each of the two cannot exist without the other. Racing needs the income from bookmaking. Bookmaking is perhaps less dependent on horse racing than 10, 15 or 20 years ago, but it is still a tremendously important part of its income. We must recognise that.
	It has also been pretty much universally agreed in today's debate that the current levy system is old-fashioned and, if not broken, in the process of breaking. It is a solution that to modern eyes and ears feels corporatist. It feels peculiar to have political intervention, lobbying and decision making on something that feels as though it ought to be a normal commercial relationship. As a number of hon. Members stated, the challenge is not whether we accept that premise-most hon. Members have accepted the basic premise-but in working out what a normal commercial relationship will look like and how we can get from where we are today to that point, and on a sustainable basis.

Philip Davies: Will the Minister give way?

John Penrose: I am afraid that I have to be extremely quick and will not be able to take any more interventions due to the pressure of time, but the hon. Gentleman's speech was very short so I shall give way to him.

Philip Davies: I am very grateful. May I suggest that that commercial arrangement is simply between bookmakers and racecourses? Often, the problem is that too many people are pitching in, when in fact all the bookmakers want to do is buy a product from the promoter of the racing product, so to speak, which is the racecourses. Surely it should be up to the racecourses to put up prize money levels to attract owners in the first place. The commercial arrangement should be a simple one.

John Penrose: That illustrates one of the difficulties in designing a sustainable system for the future. My hon. Friend is quite right that that is one potential solution, but I think many people would have grave problems with it. I hope that Members will wish me luck in coming up with a solution that pleases everybody, or at least does not displease too many people. Many people in the Horsemen's Group and other parts of racing would be extremely worried by my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I take his perfectly legitimate point.
	A flier has been going around from William Hill, and I believe the substance of it also largely appeared in an advertisement in the  Racing Post last week. It states:
	"What is the answer, then? Simple. Replace the levy with a normal commercial negotiation."
	Amen to that, and many people would say the same thing. The difficulty is, what exactly does a normal commercial negotiation look like given that at the moment, we do not have a willing buyer and a willing seller? Racing has nothing to sell-it does not have the type of property rights that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk talked about. I am not sure whether William Hill is proposing a property right, but if it is, I suspect that many people in other parts of the bookmaking and gambling industry will be concerned about that. That is another problem that we face. There is no obvious compromise, and if we are to get one, there will have to be a great deal of good will on both sides and a willingness to discuss the matter.
	We have already taken our initial steps. We intend to take powers in the Public Bodies Bill to remove the Secretary of State's role in the levy determination process. That is a step in the right direction because it takes politicians and politics out of the individual levy determination, but it does not go nearly far enough towards revising the system fundamentally, and that is the point that we have to get to.
	Whatever solution is proposed-as I said, I intend to take up the challenge of bringing solutions forward for discussion during the course of the year-it has to produce a level playing field in a number of ways. First, there has to be a level playing field between betting exchanges and bookies, which are two fundamentally different business models. It is clearly no responsibility of any Government to start dictating which business models they prefer within a particular industry, so we should not play favourites between betting exchanges and traditional bookmakers. However, we should ensure that there is a level playing field in the contribution to racing of those two business models, and then one or the other will presumably win out in due course by the normal rules of free commercial competition.
	Equally, it is essential that we have a level playing field between British horse racing, other sports and events that are bet on-given the innovation in the industry, it seems that we will be able to put a bet on many more things in future-and foreign racing. It would clearly not be in the interests of British racing if a significant, or even modest, contribution was inherent in the cost of placing a bet, but was not applied to other events on which people could place a bet in a bookmaker's. We have to understand whether we can either whittle that differential down or get as close to a level playing field as we can, so that we do not disadvantage British racing.
	As a number of colleagues have said, we must also have a level playing field between people who place bets with domestic bookmakers and betting exchanges and those who do so remotely or overseas through operations based offshore, including through the internet. We are clearly a long way from that at the moment.
	As I said earlier, when I consider the responses to the previous Government's consultation, I will bear in mind the broader issue. Important though a level playing field is, there is also the question of consumer protection. At the moment, people who place bets in Britain, with domestically regulated exchanges or bookmakers or through any other type of gambling, are protected by the Gambling Commission. If someone places a bet on equivalent games that are regulated offshore, their protection may be severely lower or in some cases zero. That clearly has implications such as the potential for problem gambling.
	I have heard what Members have said and am happy to pick up the challenge. As I said, I hope Members will wish me luck. They will have heard from the debate that the different positions are quite wide apart at the moment, and in some cases deeply entrenched. That is a major problem that we have to solve, and I look forward to bringing forward our proposals as requested in the motion.

Matthew Hancock: It has a been a pleasure to hear today's debate and the passionate declaration of support for the racing industry. I declare my support for, and support from, the racing industry. That passion has shown the value of this Backbench Business Committee debate.
	What have we learned today? There is a broad consensus on the need to reform the levy and clear support for the need for a fair return. The Minister joined us in recognising the value of a property or racing right in that respect. For him that was one option, but for me it is the preferred option. We also heard of a previous Minister's support for a sports betting right, which is significant. Finally, it was a great pleasure to hear the Minister refer in the terms that he did to the impact of offshore betting on the industry. The symbiotic relationship between betting and racing can be improved by a commercial relationship, but only if that is based on what racing has to sell and its right to sell it.
	Lastly, the level of support, the fact that speeches have had to be short, and the number of people who have spoken show how important and urgent the issue of the racing levy is. I am delighted that the Minister accepts the motion and that he is prepared to take up the gauntlet-I will ensure that he does, and that it fits when it is finally put on.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved ,
	That this House notes that the horseracing industry supports employment of 100,000 people in Britain and that the racing industry contributes £3.5 billion to the UK economy each year; celebrates the contribution the industry makes to the cultural and sporting landscape of Britain; recognises Newmarket's role as the global headquarters of racing; but further notes that the horseracing betting levy yield has been falling in recent years; further recognises the changing nature of the gambling industry; is concerned that betting operators are increasingly based offshore and so do not fully contribute to the levy; and considers that the Government should bring forward proposals to improve the system of funding for racing and the relationship between racing and bookmakers before the end of 2011.

Disadvantaged Children

Damian Hinds: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of improving life chances for disadvantaged children.
	I begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for giving parliamentary time to this important subject, and by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), from whom we look forward to hearing. His work, of course, is the prompt for this debate. He has once again contributed hugely to the wider debate on such matters.
	Following briefings with the right hon. Gentleman, which were organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), he and I jointly applied for this debate. I know my hon. Friend is very disappointed-as I am-that he cannot be here today because of Select Committee work.
	The debate is timely given the publication yesterday of the study on early-years intervention by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I am reminded with each passing birthday that life begins at 40-although I am increasingly coming to believe that it begins at 50-but, sadly, the prospects of many of our poorest children will be largely settled by the time they have reached the age of six. The hon. Gentleman's thoughtful study and recommendations make another compelling case for much-enhanced early action to ensure that every child can reach its potential. I know that it will have a wide readership on both sides of the House.
	We have many opportunities to make party political debating points in the House, and doubtless hon. Members will want to make some today. That is not a bad thing, even if it is avoidable. However, I hope and trust that it will not be the dominant feature of this debate, because the issue of disadvantaged children crosses a number of Government Departments. Obviously, it involves the Department for Education and children's services, but it also involve the Department of Health, housing, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and other Departments.
	Such issues go to the heart of why so many hon. Members on both sides of the Houses were motivated to go into politics in the first place. There is so much more that unites us in our objectives than divides us, but that is not to say that consensus is always possible, or even desirable, because in both political traditions, conventional wisdom and orthodoxy need to be questioned, and there is much to hypothesise, challenge and debate.
	The rather depressing facts of the case, working backwards, are that among adults there is a significant wage premium for having grown up in a better-off, better educated family. That is true across much of the developed world, but it is especially true in this country. Some 1 million young adults are not in education, employment or training. The best universities are dominated by those from better-off families. Just 16% of students at Russell Group universities are from the lower socio-economic groups, although they make up half of the population. In secondary schools, the odds of getting five or more good GCSEs are four times greater for children with degree-educated parents. Even at the start of primary school, twice as many children are school-ready at the age of three in the top income quintile-the top fifth of earning families-compared to those at the bottom. Those in the bottom fifth are a third more likely than those in top fifth to have conduct problems or be hyperactive.
	The differences between children start very early, based on the father's occupation, the mother's education and housing tenure. They accentuate and widen further at every stage between the ages of 3 and 14. However, there are two important riders to that. First, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North points out, what parents do is far more important than who they are. Secondly, it is not actually the income of the parents that drives the income of their children: it is their education that drives the future success of their children, and it just so happens that educational attainment is closely correlated with parental income.
	The statistical patterns of yesterday and today can be broken. If we get the early years and education right, anything is possible. In the early years-what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead calls the foundation years-most of the success factors are not rocket science. They include a healthy pregnancy, a strong and early attachment to mum, and spending time with the baby, talking, reading and singing nursery rhymes. Though it may not be rocket science, most new parents-as I know from recent experience myself-discover that they have a lot to learn. The challenge of hard-to-reach families is even bigger-much bigger. In such families, the parents' childhoods may not have been good and they may not be very eager to learn about parenting. Reaching out to those parents is key. There is, alas, no silver bullet, but the challenge is at the very heart of this debate.
	We know that quality nurseries and child care are key. Economists have long told us that the marginal £1 million or £1 billion would be far more effectively spent in early-years provision than in tertiary education, but the problem is that that is exactly what we have been doing for the last decade. The extensive analysis carried out by the Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring shows that, even with all the investment in Sure Start children's centres, the key early predictors of later educational success remained basically stable. We need to think afresh about what is done, how it is done and for whom-how best to reach the hardest to reach.
	At school, the importance of the ability to read and communicate cannot be stressed enough. Support for the children who struggle, alongside effective diagnosis of special educational needs, has to be given the highest priority in our education system. If a child cannot read, nothing else in school works and children can rapidly become disengaged. Working with parents does not stop at the end of the foundation years. Indeed, quite a lot of evidence suggests that it is not in school that the gap between the rich kids and the poor kids widens-it is what happens outside school, in the evenings, at the weekends and in the holidays, hence the emphasis in the Knowledge is Power Program schools in the United States on a longer school day, holiday programmes and so on.
	There is an apparent correlation across countries between total spend on education and higher levels of social mobility. Education spending in this country pretty much doubled in real terms under the previous Government, which of course brought benefits-I do not deny that for a moment-but did not bring the corresponding increase in life chances for the most disadvantaged. Clearly, however, it is not just about what we spend, but about what we do. Studies consistently show that the quality of the person teaching is vital, which is true at the nursery stage right through to the secondary stage. We also know that extending participation in education at both ends of the scale-in the early years and post-16-tends to improve mobility as well as average attainments.
	What is being done, and what can be done? I acknowledge the good things done by the previous Government as well as the great ambitions of the new coalition. Of course, the previous Government did many things with which I did not agree, but sometimes it is good to dwell on those things with which one does agree. I certainly did not doubt their good intentions in the field of education and improving social mobility. Under the previous Government, schools were made more accountable; academies were born; great strides were made to bring fresh talent into teaching; free nursery care provision was extended; and the process of upping the school leaving age to 18 was put in train.
	What of the new Government? Ministers care passionately about all children, but it is when they discuss how to improve the life chances for the most disadvantaged that I see them at their most animated. I applaud the key strands of the new Government's approach. The first includes the extension of free nursery care to disadvantaged two-year-olds; the refocusing of Sure Start; and the Tickell review into the foundation stages and how to narrow the gap between rich and poor. At the other end of the scale, there are the measures to increase the participation age to 18 and enable schools like the KIPP schools in the United States to be formed; the Minister's Green Paper on special educational needs provision; the doubling of Teach First and the focus on the quality of teaching throughout the education White Paper and the Secretary of State's programme; and perhaps most of all the pupil premium. In all the debates about funding, the full enormity of this massive structural change sometimes gets overlooked. Schools will now have an active incentive to seek out the most disadvantaged pupils and find space for them, in the knowledge that they will have the additional resources they need.
	One could say that at a time of necessary deep spending cuts there are not many easy areas in which to make those cuts. However, there probably are some. In the field of education, it would have been relatively easy to reverse the recent increase in free nursery care from 12.5 hours to 15 hours, and it would have been relatively easy not to proceed with the increase in participation age from 16 to 18. However, I am delighted that those two things were not reversed, and that an additional £300 million has been found for the additional nursery provision for disadvantaged two-year-olds. That is a measure of the coalition's commitment.
	As for further ways forward, we certainly do not start from scratch. There are many great national and local programmes for early years and later on. Home-Start, for example, whose Weywater and Butser branches operate in my constituency, does sterling work. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) and I recently visited Parent Gym, which is a fantastic parenting programme getting great results in south London, as is Save the Children's families and schools together programme. There is also much to applaud in the nursery sector, and there are brilliant schools and all kinds of fantastic small, local voluntary sector organisations.
	There is no shortage of new ideas out there. We will no doubt hear some from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. The hon. Member for Nottingham North is considering others, and the Sutton Trust's mobility manifesto goes through rigorous cost-benefit analyses. In my view, looking at that in the round, there will be three key enablers to maximising effectiveness. First, the focal point of public debate should move far more into foundation years, questioning how what happens in those formative stages, both in the home and out of it, impacts on life chances forever. Secondly, we need a new set of metrics for poverty of opportunity as well as in cash terms-the life-chances indicators that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead enumerates. Thirdly, we need a repository of ideas, information and data-the sort of early-intervention foundation that the hon. Member for Nottingham North writes about-that would evaluate what works best and facilitate the sharing of best practice. Those three things-focus, metrics and the sharing of best practice-need to underpin a new approach to improving the life chances of disadvantaged children. Of course, there are many more facets-which, in the interests of time, I will not touch on-including promoting healthy pregnancies; school admissions policies; improving employability and weaving life skills into the curriculum; the role of mentoring and careers advice; mental health issues; the challenges of disability; and specific issues for children in care and those who are themselves young carers. I look forward to a broad debate.
	According to the Sutton Trust, the same gaps in key early-years indicators are emerging among the millennium cohort as in the cohort born in the year I was born. This issue remains one of the key unsolved challenges for our society, and therefore for this House. I know it is one that hon. Members in all parts of the House feel strongly about, and rightly so. We also feel a great sense of urgency, because this generation must be the last to suffer the chasm in life chances that comes with the lottery of birth.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Before we set off, may I remind Members that I hope to keep the opening speeches to 15 minutes?

Frank Field: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and his colleagues on calling this debate. I would also like to remark on the quality of his speech. If my contribution is half as good as his, not only will I be pleased, but the House will be relieved.
	Let me begin by reminding the House of the audacious goal that the Labour Government set not only this House, but the nation. They were the first Government to say that, over a 20-year time span, we would abolish child poverty. Whatever one says about the results, they were a Government who tried to will the resources to achieve that objective. In fact, the Government's consultation document area puts the money intended to try to raise the incomes of the poorest families-largely through the tax credits system-at £150 billion. These are huge sums, amounting to £15 billion a year on average, which is the equivalent of 4p on the standard rate of tax. Therefore, the previous Government were immensely serious about trying to achieve that objective.
	If we look at the published data, however, we see that the results are modest, if not disappointing. Despite the size of the resources, the number of poor children was reduced, over 10 years, by 600,000. That is of course important for those 600,000 children, but it left 2.8 million still in poverty. In a sense, the figures are the beginnings for our new debate-a debate that we as politicians must now craft, and which the hon. Gentleman opened so well.
	That debate is about this question: where do we go from here? Even if we were not beset by the largest structural deficit since the second world war, would we continue with the same strategy as the previous Government?
	In particular, the previous Government emphasised the importance of redistributing income. In our debates on the then Child Poverty Bill, I questioned whether it was an adequate strategy by itself. I did so partly because of what I saw in my constituency and what I saw when travelling to other Members' constituencies: those troubling signs, when children whose parents are not working are late for school; and when no one in the household thinks it is important enough to get themselves up, so that they can then get the children up, to get them washed, dressed, fed and off to school on time. Slowly, I began to question whether money by itself, important though it is, was an adequate strategy to deal with child poverty.
	Then, the Prime Minister offered me the opportunity to review poverty and life chances-an offer that I willingly accepted. Two pieces of information-two bits of knowledge-that I came across in undertaking that review knocked me sideways, one of which came from one of the more successful Birkenhead junior schools. The school first came to my notice 20 years ago when parents were not being truthful about where they lived because they wanted to get their children into the school. We might all think that it is wrong to lie, but I felt a sneaking admiration for those parents who, knowing the cards that they had been dealt, felt that getting their children into a good school and giving them a good start was the best thing they could do for them. So that school is not in any way a sink school.
	I asked the headmaster to list the skills that he and his teaching staff-and the equivalent staff in other schools-thought necessary if children were to be able fly on their first day. Hardened as I am to some aspects of life, I was staggered by the list of qualities that teaching staff would have liked all children to have. I stress "all children", because some already have them. For example, he said that it would be important for children starting school to know their own name; to know the word "stop", because it could be used to avert danger; to be able to take their coat off; to be potty-trained; to be able to hold a crayon; and to be able to sit still. To my mind, this issue clearly went beyond money, no matter how important money is.
	The second piece of information was from the national surveys, which are about the only thing from which the hon. Member for East Hampshire did not quote. The work that the university of London has carried out on the cohort studies shows that, perhaps by three years old and certainly by five, life's race is over for most children. Of course we might be able to make some differences later on, but for most children we have not yet discovered how to change their life chances after the age of five. It seemed to me, therefore, that any review of poverty and life chances needed to concentrate on those crucial early or foundation years. We have called them "foundation years" because it seems that all life's opportunities are built on them.
	The report has two main recommendations. The first was that the Government should build up a series of life chances indicators, nationally and locally, to run alongside the poverty objectives in the Child Poverty Act 2010. The second was that, once those indicators had been put on to the statute book or equivalent, alongside the financial goals related to dealing with child poverty the Government should have a different driver for policy. The previous Government were concerned to prevent the numbers of poor children from increasing, and every year, if possible, to find the money to reduce the numbers. That concern suffocated the rest of the debate. One could have forgiven people for not knowing that there were four definitions of poverty on the statute book. The one goal was to move children's families above 60% of median earnings. I stress that that is important, but I no longer believe that it is necessarily the key criterion with which we should be concerned when considering life chances. We suggested the establishment of the foundation years in order that the Government should have an organisation through which they could drive new policy. That involves the grouping together of all those activities and services that at present go under the title of "early years". Those early years start long before pregnancy; they start in schools.
	The last piece of personal information that I want to give to the House is that I recently spoke to a group of 15-year-olds in a school that I shall be proud to chair when it becomes an academy. I asked them what they most wanted from their school contract. Two of the replies staggered me. One asked whether the school would be able to teach them how to make lifelong friendships, and what the necessary skills would be. All of them wanted to know how to be good parents. They did not say "better parents". None of them gave any hint that their parents might even once, let alone regularly, have put their own needs before those of their children. It seems to me that if we are to drive policy differently and liberate those whose life chances are now determined by the age of five, we cannot start early enough. The whole culture of a school and what is taught in it about these skills is clearly part of the answer.
	I should like to address to those on the Treasury Bench one challenge for the Government. I am lucky in that none of the Sure Start units in my constituency is being cut, reduced or closed, but that is not likely to be true elsewhere. Although the report, which I was privileged to help compile, says that we should not accept Sure Start as it is and that we should turn it upside down so that it much more closely meets the original objective of helping the most disadvantaged families most, it is inconceivable that we can make a go of the foundation years if Sure Start units all over the place are slaughtered.
	For reasons that were set out during the election and in the coalition agreement, the Government believe that, wherever possible, power and money should be devolved to local authorities so that they can do as they think best for their area. Local authorities will, of course, be judged by their own local life chances indicators. I hope that the electorate will push for their establishment and measure their local authority's success in widening life chances-in other words, lifting up those who have the least advantage in our communities.
	This programme will not work without some more money. I am not talking about the £150 billion given for redistribution through tax credits, but it is naïve to believe that the Government will be able to make a go of establishing life chances or be able to report progress to the electorate by the end of this Parliament unless they find from somewhere moneys to finance the foundation years more fully-other than from the current budgets allocated. I emphasise again that we are not calling for huge sums. I do not think that we know how to spend huge sums in this area, but some commitment is certainly needed. I hope that when the Government complete their review in March, they will confirm not only that they are going to follow this strategy, but that they will accord it a higher priority than other areas and that, if need be, resources will be shifted from those areas to make the foundation years the driving force to change the life chances of our poorest citizens.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I remind all hon. Members of Mr Speaker's decision to have an eight-minute limit. The full eight minutes need not be taken up, unless there are many interventions. I hope to be able to call every Member who wants to speak. That is important.

Helen Grant: One of the greatest attributes of the British people is their belief in fairness. It is that sense of fairness that supports the notion that whatever one's starting point in life's marathon, it does not have to be a personal best for the rest of the race. If people choose to move up the field or even get into the leading pack, they should have the opportunity to do so. To me, that is what social mobility is all about. There are many complicated definitions, but social mobility is fundamentally about an individual's ability to achieve, to progress and to reach their full potential, whoever they are, wherever they are from, if they choose to do so.
	Governments around the world see social mobility as an elusive grail. As a result, numerous policies, initiatives, grants and strategies have been aimed at creating ladders of opportunity and life chances for people. For all that, social mobility has stalled badly during the past 30 years. Different reasons have been advanced to explain that, including not having enough good schools in poor areas and the expansion of university education, which helped richer rather than poorer children. For me, one of the main reasons is that insufficient attention has been paid to boosting self-confidence and self-esteem in our children, which are the prerequisites for aspiration, motivation and success. If we are really serious about improving life chances for children, we must develop that.
	Schools and teachers have a key role to play, and they were critical to my own journey. My entire childhood could be described as working class. During those years I had first-hand experience of a lack of money and a lack of opportunity, and I also witnessed the terrible waste that can come with aspirational poverty. At school I was not a natural A-streamer in every subject, and I had an extremely difficult time in many ways and for a number of reasons, but I was touched by certain inspirational teachers who believed in me. Via their words and deeds, they not only provided me with a good education, but boosted my self-confidence and self-esteem.
	I shall always remember the words of one sports teacher. When she saw how quickly I could run, she said, "Helen, we had better buy a stopwatch and start training you for the Olympics." She did buy the watch, and I believed her. Although, sadly, I did not make the Olympics, her positive remark was enough to get me going. Sporting success boosted my self-confidence and self-esteem, and that spilled over into my academic subjects, allowing me to achieve quite good results in everything.
	While I acknowledge the importance of formal academic subjects such as those set out in the new EBacc, the importance of confidence-building subjects such as music, art, drama and sport should not be underestimated. More focus should also be given to skills in schools. Children need to feel good about themselves. Not everyone is academic, and perhaps we need to recognise that our goal should not be sameness. Society needs people of all levels and abilities.

Christopher Leslie: A high proportion of young boys in my constituency-some 39% or 40%-have special educational needs and therefore rely heavily on teaching assistants in the classroom, but I fear that, owing to the budgetary situation, teaching assistants may fall by the wayside first. Would the hon. Lady like to say a few words of support for those who work in that profession, and for the good work that they do?

Helen Grant: I could not agree more, in many respects. We must support our teachers. They are key and most of them do a fantastic job, but we need to help, and to watch the position carefully.
	Everyone has a different level of skill and society needs people who have a different manner and different skills, so perhaps the true goal should be equality of opportunity. Our state boarding schools are hidden gems in our country's education system. They often head academic league tables, they often outperform the independent sector, and they offer unique life chances to children with potential who may come from difficult backgrounds with limited financial means. At present the Government are rightly keen to extend new boarding accommodation for vulnerable children, and the state boarding school sector supports that move. Vulnerable children can do very well in such an environment, but the transition must take place in the right manner and at the right pace. State boarding schools understand their sector: they know what works and what does not work, and we must listen to them.
	I am glad that creating life chances is a priority for the Government. I take considerable heart from initiatives such as the pupil premium, the continuation of Sure Start and the creation of more apprenticeships, because they offer an alternative to the strictures of academia. Notwithstanding the country's financial difficulties, I hope that those and other measures remain high on the Government's agenda.

Ann Coffey: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this extremely important and valuable debate. I believe that there is all-party agreement that early intervention in children's lives is crucial to tackling not just the symptoms but the causes of deprivation, in order to prevent disadvantaged children from becoming disadvantaged adults and prevent cycles of deprivation from being repeated.
	We all accept that it is essential to make the right interventions. Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) have made that point in their excellent reports. However, the key question is: how do we most effectively achieve such intervention and produce good outcomes?
	In an earlier debate, I discussed some of the interventions that I believe can make a difference, such as outreach work with families. The pilot scheme in my constituency to provide early-years education to disadvantaged two-year-olds was extremely successful, and we also had a successful pilot scheme for family nurse partnerships. Both share a similar model: contact with parents; building relationships with those parents; giving them information; and getting them to use other support services to improve the quality of their parenting, which is a key factor in delivering better outcomes for children.
	I want to focus today on whether the introduction of the new early intervention grant will help us to safeguard such achievements and move us further towards obtaining the outcomes for disadvantaged children that we all want. The main problems with the EIG are that it is not a specific grant-it is not ring-fenced-and that it represents an 11% cut on its predecessor grants. They, themselves, were cut last year, so the real cut is more like 17% in Government funding to Stockport. The new EIG is not confined to early interventions in children's lives; it is for early interventions in a number of areas. The EIG will replace funding to a wide variety of 22 other schemes, including everything from the Youth Taskforce to teenage pregnancy programmes, the youth crime plan and young people's substance misuse services. Those schemes give support to young people in need, but they will now have to compete against each other for resources.
	The Government have said that although local authorities will be able to spend money where they want, they will be expected to continue to support Sure Start children's centres and the free early education places for disadvantaged two-year-olds. Ministers have also reiterated that short breaks for disabled children, support for vulnerable young people, mental health work in schools and support for families with multiple problems should also be priorities. However, it is not mandatory that those services are prioritised, and I fear that there will be a lot of casualties in the local financial tussles for funding up and down the country.
	As the Minister will be aware, there is much concern in the early-years sector about the removal of ring-fencing, despite ministerial reassurances that the Government expect to see early-years services protected. People know that, ultimately, without a sanction, the councils can chose to ignore the exhortations of Ministers. The Daycare Trust, the national child care charity, says that many local authorities are already considering diverting funding allocated for early-years provision, leading to the possible closure of Sure Start centres.
	I do believe that Ministers have genuinely accepted the arguments about early intervention, and I welcome that. Such a view is supported by the fact that the Government set up the report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and this week's report by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. Both reports call for much more emphasis to be placed on the early years. It would be a shame if, having accepted the principle, Ministers failed to tackle the problem in a way that will make a real difference to the lives of some of the most disadvantaged and deprived families in the country.
	As my right hon. Friend said in his recent report on poverty and life chances, which was endorsed by the Prime Minister:
	"Later interventions to help poorly performing children can be effective but, in general, the most effective and cost-effective way to help and support young families is in the earliest years of a child's life."
	It is vital that we continue the valuable work with young children that has been done so far, be it through children's centres and early-years education, or through outreach work with hard-to-reach families, and that projects and services around the country are not damaged by the change in the funding process from having individual ring-fenced budgets to having one smaller communal pot of money, which has to be fought over locally.

Graham Stuart: The hon. Lady is making a powerful and thoughtful speech. I wonder where she feels savings could be made elsewhere within the educational budget in order to prioritise early-years provision. I hope that Sure Start's increased focus on the most vulnerable children, albeit with a reduced budget overall, can still deliver more of the benefit that we were originally seeking. Perhaps she, like the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), would accept larger class sizes as the price for getting more money into early intervention. These are the choices that we need to make. I wonder whether she has any thoughts on that.

Ann Coffey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but the point that I am making is about the difficulty when ring-fencing is removed from grants from central Government to local government. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what processes are in place to ensure that we monitor how much money continues to be spent on early-years intervention as the mixed picture of how local councils choose to spend the early intervention grant emerges.
	I would also be grateful for clarification about what monitoring procedures will be put in place to evaluate the effectiveness of the money spent in terms of outcomes for disadvantaged children. I can foresee two years from now a parliamentary question asking for information about early-years intervention receiving the reply, "The information is not kept centrally." Without central monitoring, it is difficult for hon. Members to hold the Government to account for their stated policies.
	Targets and some external assessments of local authorities are being abolished so how will the Government monitor whether their emphasis on the importance of early-years intervention is shared by cash-strapped councils in the face of priorities set by a local electorate that might not be the same as those of the Government? The pressure on local councillors might be to maintain parks and street lighting and to keep roads and pavements in good repair. They have to be responsive to the needs of their electorate and early-years intervention might not be a priority for local people.
	The Government have emphasised the importance they give to early years, but the chosen commissioners are councils so how, without statutory guidance and without ring-fencing, will the Government ensure that councils deliver on the coalition's commitment to early interventions in children's lives?
	While I have the opportunity, I want to draw attention briefly to another disadvantaged group-children in care homes. They are the children who would have benefited from early intervention in their lives. As the chair of the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults, I am particularly concerned about the number of children who run away from care homes. I was shocked when I discovered that more than half the children reported missing in Greater Manchester are from children's homes in Stockport. This is concerning, as research shows that children who run away are at serious risk, exposed to violence, criminality, substance abuse, sexual exploitation and trafficking.
	Over the years, I have expressed much concern about the need to improve Ofsted's inspection reports so that they reflect the numbers of children who go missing from care homes. We are awaiting the new national minimum standards for children's homes, which I hope will tackle the issue. I am disappointed that the timetable for the publication of the new standards keeps slipping. In a parliamentary written answer in July last year, I was told the revised standards would be ready in November 2010. When they did not appear, I tabled another question and was told they would be ready "early in 2011". I hope that the new standards will be published as soon as possible and will include in the inspections of children's homes consideration of how those homes manage children who go missing to ensure that the highest quality of care and control is provided.
	In conclusion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North said in his report about the importance of early intervention policies and programmes:
	"The rationale is simple: many of the costly and damaging social problems in society are created because we are not giving children the right type of support in their earliest years, when they should achieve their most rapid development. If we do not provide that help early enough, then it is often too late".
	His words must not go unheeded.

Jessica Lee: I, too, begin my speech by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing the debate. For many of us, a motivation in coming to this place and standing for public service was the wish to discuss such issues as improving the life chances for disadvantaged children. I certainly speak for myself in that regard.
	It is perhaps important that I declare an interest. For the last 10 years, I have been working as a family lawyer, specialising in child protection. I want to mention the prospects and difficulties faced by those children, in particular, in my speech. I also want to thank my hon. Friend for his impeccable timing. We have the benefit of the very important contribution made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and the written paper that he has prepared. Just yesterday, we had the report from the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on early intervention. There is also the background, since the formation of the coalition Government, of the report that Professor Eileen Munro has been asked to prepare a report on the challenges faced by social workers and those working in child protection at this difficult time.
	My work experience leads me to observe that the current evidence and reports into early-years development are the key to improving life chances for disadvantaged children. I shall expand on that by giving some insight into the care proceedings that some children have to go through and the impact of that on the families involved. First, however, I want to mention the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who has shown leadership and expertise in raising the issue of outcomes for looked-after children. His all-party group on looked-after children and care leavers is now looking into outcomes for looked- after children, particularly the concerns about the disproportionately lower educational and other outcomes for such children. I am confident that the work undertaken in that regard will feature in and add to the broader debate we are having about outcomes for disadvantaged children.
	Many hon. Members might be aware that if a child's future and life ever become the subject of a court case, they are likely to have suffered a range of abuses and harms, including physical, sexual and emotional harm and neglect. Sadly, there is often a mixture of all or some of those elements. I have read many statements and reports that will stay with me for many years, such as accounts of children who have been so neglected and so deprived of basic nutrition, food and drink that when they arrive in foster care, they automatically go up to the bathroom to try to get water from the toilet bowl. They might smear faeces due to psychological concerns. I remember a case years ago of a child whose feet had been forced into shoes so small for such a long time that if anyone, including a doctor, tried to relieve the child's pain or go near their feet to treat them, the child would be very distressed and traumatised. Those examples give a tiny insight into the many tragic cases and reports that I have come across over the years.
	I should like to highlight the particular challenges faced by social workers, particularly front-line workers. We already have some indications from the Munro review. I shall not dwell on that for long, but I support Professor Munro's preliminary observations. This issue is not about targets or paperwork; we are talking about professionals who are trying their best. They need as much support as possible and a structure that will enable them to be out helping children and exercising their judgment about those children's future prospects rather than filling in reports and filing paperwork.
	Let me deal briefly also with the difficulties that local authorities have in placing children into foster care. The situation around the country is variable but there can be shortages in foster care placements. That feeds into the concerns raised in the report of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. The early years are crucial, and disruption and continual placement moves can have a serious impact on children's, particularly young children's, development and ability to form attachments and important relationships with adults.
	The court process is bewildering and challenging for anyone, even before one has factored in the addictions that the parents and young people involved might be troubled with. They might have limited cognitive functioning or learning difficulties or they might lack a support network. I remember the case of a young mother who had struggled in a relationship of domestic violence; when she was asked if there was anyone she could stay with or who could help, her answer was simply, "No." I think of many of my friends and family with young children who are not in poverty and have a good support network, but they struggle with young babies, so one can only imagine how difficult it is for young mothers in a very different scenario.
	Safeguarding children is ultimately the concern of the courts, and that has to come before anything else, but court proceedings can be lengthy. There are always difficulties in securing court dates, experts, advocates and judges. For a child who goes into foster care at one, proceedings might still be under way when the child approaches their second birthday. Even I can work out that nearly 50% of that young child's life has been spent in a court process. Again, that brings me back to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, and the concerns about the impact of that process on young children.
	Drug and alcohol abuse feature more frequently than any of us would wish and there are difficulties with mental health provision. I look forward to a response from the Minister this afternoon as to how we can more clearly join up facilities and support for parents and for the children who need mental health support.

Andrew Percy: The mental health issue is incredibly important. Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem in the education system at the moment is that many school teachers are not properly trained to recognise mental health problems in pupils? It is often too easy to dismiss such problems as bad or difficult behaviour. We must include such training in the teacher training process.

Jessica Lee: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Again, this is about working across departments and professions. There has already been a good move towards that, but any further support for school teachers and health visitors, working together with social services, will always improve the outcomes for young children.
	I welcome the reports on early intervention and the early years, and the progress that has been made as a result of the Munro review, and I urge the Government to consider the national parenting campaign in more detail. I also welcome some of the steps taken by the coalition Government, such as the pupil premium.
	My constituency is lucky to have an excellent Home-Start in Ilkeston, and we have great Sure Start centres. They work incredibly hard and I urge local authorities and those in Government, while there is a real momentum, to implement early intervention, and look at how we can all work together in the longer term to improve the outcomes for such disadvantaged children.

David Simpson: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on obtaining this important debate. I speak as someone who grew up with a rural, working-class and relatively average background, and as the father of three children. My parents, like all parents, wanted the best for me, and I want the best for my children. I imagine that all hon. Members, from whatever party, would share that wish for succeeding generations. That is why it is welcome to see that the Government plan to improve the life chances of disadvantaged children at a very early age before they start school. I agree that the nought to five age group, which has been dubbed the foundation years, should be put on an equal footing with primary and secondary schooling
	But we have to face up to certain realities. This is not simply about throwing money at a problem. Other crucial issues are involved. Neither can we take the approach that it does not require financial investment by Government. I fear that too often in the past an emphasis has been placed on financial intervention, Government expenditure and statistics on a page. We have created a culture of benefit dependency that has become generational, passed down from parent to child.
	Have we really failed when it comes to education? We have emphasised the number of young people who go to university, regardless of the fact that far too many leave with degrees that are utterly useless when it comes to finding a job in the real world. I am reminded of a media studies course once offered at Staffordshire university that included a module on David Beckham. As Members can tell, that would hold little attraction for me, but I am sure that some people might be interested in studying David Beckham's different hair cuts. How does that help young people achieve a better future and better life prospects?
	For that reason, I welcome the fact that the Government have acknowledged that the children of adults with few opportunities in the labour market are at risk of growing up with the same disadvantages, perpetuating the poverty cycle for a new generation. I also welcome the fact that the Government have said that they will focus on reducing the factors that lead to
	"disadvantaged children... gaining fewer qualifications",
	which leads to
	"a widening gap in employment outcomes in later life."
	However, those must be the right kind of qualifications that actually offer the prospect of employment.
	We have had too casual an attitude to the benefits of marriage and family. As a nation, we have almost made it a crusade to tell everyone that just about any kind of family unit is equal to every other. It is rather like a school sports day at which everyone wins and nobody loses. Everyone is told that they have done so well and they all get a prize. That simply does not work, and we should not regard the drift away from the traditional idea of family to be a badge of honour.
	It is important that incomes continue to rise, and it is right that prospects increase along with standards of living. In terms of health, life expectancy and social mobility, it is vital that we continue to drive the economy forward and invest in our future, but we must also address the areas that have been neglected or actively under political assault in recent years. We cannot ignore the importance of family. It is more than just a word, a catchphrase or a political gimmick. A child's life prospects are increased in a stable family with two parents who set out clear boundaries for acceptable behaviour and teach them proper social skills and interaction. Some people might point out that many young people are not growing up in such an environment and need to be assisted, and I entirely agree. However, it must also be pointed out that many of those young people will eventually be in relationships and will become parents. Are we simply to repeat the cycle all over again?
	It is not simply about finances and budgets, but nor can we ignore the financial issues. I agreed with the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who has responsibility for children, when she said on 21 December that
	"the fact that 2.8 million children in the UK live in poverty is a scandal."
	Who could argue with that? I cannot, however, agree with the comments that followed. She said:
	"The best way to eradicate child poverty is to address the causes of poverty, rather than treat only the symptoms."
	It should not be a choice between treating the causes or the symptoms. Rather, it should be about doing everything possible to treat both. I note the comments made by the former Children's Commissioner for England, who warned of the dangers of the planned cuts. I also note the concerns raised about pupil premiums, the size of the available budget and the question of new money.
	We must get to the core of the matter: social mobility. However, it must be considered not on its own, but alongside family stability, personal discipline, personal responsibility and a set of principles or-dare I say it in this House-a moral compass. That must be an element of any new approach. We hear much about the big society and there is now something of a scramble to claim to be the champions of it. The evidence we have seen with our own eyes day in, day out overwhelmingly tells of the failure of recent years and the breakdown in family and community that follows in its wake. The so-called big society, which all the main parties now seem to want to espouse, can be built upon only the smallest building blocks of any society, namely the individual and the family. We must not treat the causes and simply ignore the symptoms, so finances are important, but neither should we try, as others have in the past, to treat the symptoms without finally deciding as a people and as a Parliament to tackle the underlying causes.

Fiona Bruce: Hon. Members have highlighted the importance of ensuring that we improve the life chances of children growing up in underprivileged circumstances. This is a timely and important debate, and I am glad to be able to contribute.
	I shall highlight two issues. First, we should recognise, encourage and support the good work that already takes place in local communities to help parents nurture and care for their children. Secondly, we should recognise the importance of stable parental relationships in the life of a child.
	Whatever people say about our society today, I know from the immense amount of community work in my constituency that there is really good work out there. Home-Start East Cheshire, part of the Home-Start network that has already been mentioned, is one such excellent example. Volunteer youth workers do detached work on the streets and on deprived estates; grandparents care for grandchildren so that parents can hold down one or even two jobs; and women organise mums and tots groups at the local churches to provide mums-and dads-with a morning's precious breather and a chat.
	I recognise, however, that the level of volunteering is lower in deprived areas, and we should seek to address that important challenge.

Sarah Newton: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the importance of voluntary organisations and their work to support disadvantaged families. Does she agree that the Government need to tackle urgently the problems with the Criminal Records Bureau checks that need to be made before volunteers can volunteer? Would it not be a good idea if, for example in my constituency, we had a Cornwall volunteers card, with an annual check? People who volunteer-often for several groups in their community-could have an annual check and be enabled and supported in their volunteering?

Fiona Bruce: I do so agree. In fact, that was the subject of my very first question in the House, some months ago, and I look forward eagerly to hearing the Government's response to the idea of such a scheme being put into action. I thank my hon. Friend for raising it again; that is a timely reminder.
	As the mother of two teenage boys with the benefit of a supportive wider family, I want to promote and encourage the role of parents and grandparents in helping children to grow up to be all that they can be. In the report by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), I welcome his statement:
	"We imperil the country's future if we forget that it is the aspirations and actions of parents which are critical to how well their children prosper."
	He is absolutely right. Children flourish with support and encouragement from the care giver or care givers with whom they have, ideally, a long-term, stable and loving relationship. So do parents.
	If parents never had continuing close care and nurture as they grew up, or the example and experience in their lives of caring parents, how difficult it must be for them to be good parents themselves. We have to address that key issue. How can we break the inter-generational cycle of poverty in families where parents themselves have not had a good parenting model?

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend talks about absences in young people's lives. I am particularly concerned about young boys, who are often brought up in families with no male role models. They turn up at primary school, where more than eight out of 10 teachers are now women rather than men, and they lack the male role models in life to ensure that, as they grow up, they can learn how to behave as a man, as a father and as a supporter of their own family.

Fiona Bruce: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that I shall reflect on later when I talk about the importance of strengthening relationships between parents.
	Teaching parenting and relationship skills in schools is part of the solution, so that people really understand what it means to enter into a committed relationship. Some of the best support and encouragement for those without such a role model or family support comes from the local community-from people who are known and trusted, who are willing to be a friend to others, and who are willing to give that most precious commodity, time, and to give it continuously over a period.
	In his review, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead recommends that local authorities should aim to make children's centres a hub for the local community. In some areas where there are no existing community centres and a low level of community engagement, that is to be commended. However, it is important not to overlook the good work that already goes on in communities where organic hubs exist in churches, schools, community groups, and even homes, often with little or no financial support from the state. Before precious public funds are incurred in setting up new hubs-I know from my experience as a councillor how expensive they are-I suggest that every local authority that has not already done so should undertake a comprehensive audit of what voluntary work, including caring work, is already happening in their area, often at a highly dedicated and professional level in local communities, so that we can build on what already exists.
	As a local councillor in my previous constituency, we did just that, and we discovered an enormous amount of voluntary and community work of which the local authority was previously completely unaware. I remember the portfolio holder for community services saying to me, "I had no idea so much community work existed." Having been discovered, these groups were able to receive additional support from the local authority, giving them the potential to flourish to an even greater degree. I think, for example, of the group called Active Hope led by an inspirational young teacher who goes into schools in disadvantaged areas to help to build children's confidence and esteem through outdoor activities. His work was highlighted through just such an audit, and it is now very much in demand across the town.
	Parents and their relationships need support. As the independent review produced by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead has shown, the problems of child poverty are not just related to money, although that is, as we have acknowledged, an important factor. Child poverty is about more than money. Without wanting to detract in any way from the valued and courageous work that single parents do to bring up their children-my own brother is one such-I want to stress the importance of supporting parents to build strong relationships between themselves so that they, in turn, can support each other and nurture their children together.
	One of the most important determinants of the quality of parenting is the relationship between parents. It is vital to help young people to develop not only parenting skills but relationship skills between themselves. As someone who has run a community law firm for some 20 years, I have seen over that time how relationships between those who have come to us for a divorce have been breaking down at an increasingly early stage. It is grieving to me to see how often tiny children accompany their parents into our reception. Hon. Members might be saddened to hear that the youngest marriage we were ever asked to act on for a divorce was one in which the couple had had an argument at the wedding reception. It would be helpful for many young people to learn what it means to enter into a committed relationship, particularly when they have not witnessed it in their own family lives.
	If we want to increase the life chances of children from disadvantaged backgrounds, we should support and strengthen family relationships, including marriage. A Government report published in May 2010 entitled, "State of the nation report: poverty, worklessness and welfare dependency in the UK" stated:
	"Around 3 million children in the UK have experienced the separation of their parents. This is partly attributable to a rise in cohabitation, given the increased likelihood of break-up for cohabiting couples relative to married couples. Approximately one in three of those parents cohabiting at birth will separate before the child is five years old, compared with 1 in 10 married parents."
	It is important to reflect on those statistics, and to support and encourage those, like my brother, who find themselves in the situation of being a single parent. It behoves us all to support them as part of the wider community.
	Good parenting can, I believe, be learned; so, I believe, can good relationships. We can break the cycle of deprivation that is caused, in part, by a lack of role models in both areas. Parents are vital to the health and welfare of their children, as are their relationships, and we should support them.

Kate Green: I join right hon. and hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important and welcome debate. I also join colleagues in welcoming the reports of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), which was published yesterday. I could not agree more with them, nor with hon. Members' remarks this afternoon, on the crucial importance of the early years. It is good to see this subject receiving so much attention, not only in those reports, but in other reports that have been published in recent weeks. This week, the charity Family Action published "Born Broke", and just before Christmas, we had the important UNICEF report "The children left behind".
	I warmly welcome and strongly endorse many of the suggestions in the reports of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. It is absolutely right that we need to be proactive in addressing the needs of disadvantaged children, and that we should intervene early. It is absolutely right that what happens in the home affects what happens at school. It is right that we should secure access to quality services and programmes for children and families, and I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has said about the importance of putting children's centres at the heart of the support that we offer disadvantaged children and their families. I welcome the proposal for local child poverty commissions. It is right and sensible that we track a range of outcome indicators so that we can ensure that children improve their life chances across the spectrum of outcomes.
	The early years are crucial, but investing in them will not be enough on its own. We need to sustain the investment right through the child's life, otherwise the good effects of the additional investment in the early years will fade. I am concerned that we must keep our attention on addressing income poverty and inequality. There is so much evidence that adequate family incomes are crucial to children's outcomes. The UNICEF report that I mentioned highlights that the UK suffers from relatively poor outcomes across a range of indicators compared with other countries. That relates to our position at the lower end of the inequality spectrum. Our children are raised in a much more unequal country than those with more successful child outcomes.
	Money is important, as right hon. and hon. Members have said, and it is actually quite easy to understand why-it is about what money can buy. Parents who cannot afford the rent on decent housing will find it difficult to provide a quiet space for children to do homework. It may also mean that they are forced into overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation, where children cannot grow up safe and healthy. The lack of an adequate income to afford a decent diet will harm children's health and well-being and limit their ability to learn. Poorer families lack the means to ensure that their children can participate fully in their schooling and education. They may not be able to participate in extra-curricular activities or secure the equipment, books and computers that would help to improve their learning.
	Parents who are forced to take a series of inadequately paid and unstable short-term jobs will find it difficult to secure adequate income from employment. If we are interested in improving children's outcomes, we have to improve family income, too. Money is not separate from what enables children to do well; it is integral to their success. A continuing policy of income redistribution must therefore be at the heart of our strategy for improving children's outcomes.
	I wish to say a little about the provision of services for parents and children who face particular disadvantages and have a high level of need. As Family Action has stated in the report to which I referred earlier, the best solution for most children is to keep them with their families and support those families to do their best in bringing up their kids. Poor parenting and poverty are not necessarily linked. In the vast majority of cases, poor parents are as desperate as any others to do the very best for their children and to provide them with a loving family background and a stable home life.

Graham Evans: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady, and I should like to share an experience with her. When I was about to be a father for the first time, I went to parental classes on childbirth and on how I could help my wife in the first few weeks afterwards, and things that I could do physically to help. Perhaps it was a missed opportunity that there was no explanation for new fathers and mothers of what they could do to bring up their child well and do the most positive things possible for them. The classes were about the health and well-being of the child in the early weeks and months, not about how to be a good parent. Perhaps we should introduce lessons involving such matters for new fathers and mothers.

Kate Green: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion, which covers a number of important points. The first is the importance of fathers in raising children and improving child outcomes, and of the support that we can give families, whatever their structure, to ensure that both parents remain engaged in their children's lives.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman hints at the important point that universal provision for all people who become parents-not just the poorest-provides us with a crucial opportunity to improve the way in which they are equipped and given the confidence to raise happy, successful kids. He is right also to say that parenting and the ability to parent well go much further than simply providing materially for children and providing them with good physical health and circumstances. They are also about emotional, educational and social support, all of which should sit within programmes of support for new parents. I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments.
	As I said, we should do everything we can to enable parents to bring up their children successfully in the context of family life. It is therefore particularly important that we give extra attention to services such as Family Action's Building Bridges service, which works with parents in the home to enable them to keep their kids with them and ensures that they are properly supported to do what they want to do-raise successful children. I am wary of an over-emphasis on care settings and taking children out of the family home, which we should avoid wherever possible. The worst outcomes are for our looked-after children, and we should do everything we can to minimise the number of children who end up in state care.

Graham Stuart: We all take on board the hon. Lady's comments, given her long record in this area. I am delighted to hear her say that she sees an equal role for fathers and mothers in bringing up children. Does she agree with a presumption of equality of access between fathers and mothers in the event of separation, rather than the current presumption, which too often means fathers dropping out of children's lives altogether?

Kate Green: The presumption at the moment is that the child's best interests must be paramount, which I continue to support. Of course, in the majority of cases, we would want to secure contact with both parents after separation. However, the starting point should not be the interests and wishes of the parent; the best interests of the child must remain paramount. I hope that there will be no deviating from that valuable and valid principle in the Children Act 1989.
	Let me conclude by addressing one or two of the suggestions made in the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. I am disappointed that he is not here this afternoon to hear the many compliments that his work certainly deserves. I was pleased that he wrote of the need to intervene early and to sustain that intervention and support. His suggestions for private funding to support our children and the families who raise them are interesting and imaginative, but I hope they will not be used to let the Government off the hook. At this time, when so many of the voluntary agencies that have done so much to support our most vulnerable families are struggling to maintain their finances and when they are concerned about their financial future-they face uncertainty perhaps as soon as the beginning as the next financial year-it is important that we underwrite with financial support what is needed to raise happy, successful and healthy children. That is the responsibility of all of us: the country, the state and the Government cannot abdicate it.

Jessica Lee: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Green: No-I am just concluding, although I am always willing to hear the interesting and useful suggestions of my co-vice chair of the all-party group on children.
	I greatly welcome this debate and the reports that have informed us in recent weeks, and the many interesting, important and imaginative ideas that we have heard. Raising our children cannot and should not be done on the cheap. They are our most important priority. They are our future. Whatever the pressures on the public finances, our children must be the priority. They deserve the best.

Craig Whittaker: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this debate.
	The best way to improve life chances for disadvantaged children is to address the causes of child poverty and disadvantage rather than simply treating the short-term symptoms. It is safe to say that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with that, and with the goal of ending child poverty by 2020. That must be achieved but, as we all know, huge burdens will continue to be placed on families as the task of eradicating our country's financial crisis continues. That could have a huge effect on increasing child poverty, especially in workless households. We must therefore ensure that getting people into and back into work is at the top of our Government's agenda.
	As a constituency MP who knows only too well the devastating effects of unemployment on children, I look forward to the coalition Government's reforms of the benefit system, and in particular to the Work programme proposals. I also look forward to the spring, when the Government will produce their new child poverty strategy. Lord Hill has announced that there will be a range of policies to help to eradicate child poverty.
	A range of policies to start the process of attacking child poverty has already been announced. The £2.5 billion pupil premium that will give disadvantaged children the resources they need to succeed in school and beyond has already been mentioned. Investment in early years and safeguarding education will bring long-term benefits not only to the child but to the state in future years. Let us also not forget the 15 hours of free child care per week for all disadvantaged two-year-olds, to name but a few of those initiatives. As we know, the Government also commissioned the two excellent reports from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who both considered early intervention. Both reports highlight the dire need for early intervention through child care and education. There will also be a great role for Sure Start, once it is refocused, to support the most vulnerable families.

Sarah Newton: Bearing in mind the intergenerational-and multi-generational-nature of the poverty described so well in the reports, does my hon. Friend agree that in the Sure Start centres, schools and nursery provision many of the parents struggle with literacy and numeracy and were not parented well themselves, so they might not know how to support their children in those good communication skills that are so vital to their academic achievement post-five?

Craig Whittaker: It has been widely established that the best way to way to treat early causes is before birth, and the Sure Start centres will be a great way to enhance that process in the future.
	The third report that I want to highlight today is the one commissioned from Professor Eileen Munro, which is a review of children's social work and front-line child protection practice. As with the other two reports, in her initial report Professor Munro has started to expose the underlying causes of what has gone wrong in child protection. This brings me on to the group of disadvantaged children who are often overlooked and fall beneath the radar-looked-after children. Of this cohort, only 7% go to university. A whopping percentage of those in prison have had some dealings with the care system during their lives. Life chances through employment are also very low in comparison with those for children who are not in care. As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire, there is also a premium on wages later in life.
	The previous Government moved the figures for university attendance from 1% to 7%-a great achievement but, sadly, not enough. The new Government need to do more to give those children, who have had a diabolical start in life, a better outcome. The status quo is unacceptable. The results from the Munro review will, we hope, start to address some of the underlying causes and early interventions needed. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) is no longer in his place- [ Interruption. ] I am sorry: he is back. That will teach me to keep my head down. So I can inform him that there is a role, as part of the big society, for individual communities, voluntary groups and charities to help to enhance the life chances of all our young people, over and above the roles of local authorities and the Government.
	We have heard already from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) about the many things that have happened in communities across the country, but I want to tell the House what happens locally in the Calder Valley. We have identified three key areas where, as part of the big society, we can help to enhance the life chances of our looked-after children. When many young children come into care, we find that they have never had the opportunity to learn or develop creative skills. Some of them have never had a chance to draw or even glue things together, as we did with "Blue Peter". Children's reading skills double between the ages of 7 and 8, but many children who come into care have never even read a book. One other area where a difference can be made is by helping children in care and their carers, who often do not have the experience either, in supporting and signposting at the key educational milestones in the children's lives.
	The House may recall from my maiden speech-because, after all, it was so memorable-that I pledged to support looked-after children by facilitating the setting up of a local charity in the Calder Valley to enhance the life chances of that group of disadvantaged children. I can happily report to the House that the launch date of our charity is in April, and the trustees have agreed to host and fund those projects, which will help to address those three key areas I have spoken about. That is a tangible way in which communities can help to address some of the root causes that set those children at a disadvantage at the outset of their lives. It is a small start, but hopefully the Field, Allen and Munro reports will act as catalysts so that through the new Government's policies we can start to sort out some of the root causes of child poverty and disadvantage.

Fiona Mactaggart: When I was first elected to the House and we talked about educational achievement, the conversation was nearly always about A-levels and universities. One of the great things about the Government of whom I was pleased to be member was that we shifted the debate from educational achievement by young adults to one about educational achievement at the beginning of education-children learning to read, for example. What is wonderful about today's debate is the focus on the very beginnings of education and children at the stage when they are learning to talk and listen. These basic skills are the building blocks of our personalities and future abilities to cope with the world.

Frank Field: May I also draw attention to the fact that, not only has there been this wonderful change, but it must be the first Parliament in which more Members want to debate this than the horse racing levy?  [Laughter.]

Fiona Mactaggart: The laughter following that remark shows that my right hon. Friend is supported in his view. It is a positive shift. My suspicion is that it reflects the greater participation of mothers in politics-but I will not push that point too far! We know that disadvantage starts earlier, well before school, and unfortunately gets worse during formal education. Despite the efforts of the previous Government, which I helped with, the gaps in achievement remain stubbornly wide, although we managed to narrow them in some respects. At five, 35% of children who qualify for free school meals achieve a good level of development, compared with 55% of children who do not qualify. The children on free school meals are more likely to be bullied, twice as likely to be permanently excluded, half as likely to get good GCSEs and, despite progress, less likely to go to university.
	We need to make it clear that disadvantage is directly associated with poverty in education. There is a further disadvantage, however, to do with boys. The second lowest achieving group of pupils in schools are white British boys. They are exceeded only by Gypsies and Travellers. People have said that it might be because there are too few male teachers in primary schools. As someone who used to educate primary school teachers, I think it is partly because too few young men are interested in small children, and therefore have the skills and qualities that would make someone like me, interviewing students for teacher education courses, consider them capable of becoming good teachers. Perhaps it tells us something about how we bring up young men that they do not know enough about the lives of children.

Dan Rogerson: Does the hon. Lady think that, unfortunately, our society is suspicious of men who are interested in getting involved with and supporting young children? Indeed, some men might feel that they are making themselves vulnerable if they decide to volunteer to work with young people.

Fiona Mactaggart: In my view, the red top newspapers have created that approach much too much. If men had more experience of the lives of children, they would be robust and resilient to those unfounded accusations.
	Most speakers in this debate have called for effective early intervention to tackle such inequality. I would strongly urge us to draw on good evidence of what works. For example, in my constituency a family nurse partnership working with teenage mothers has gathered powerful evidence of how it has helped young women not only to bring up their children but to take up education opportunities and build successful and happy lives. We know from research by the HighScope Perry project in America that a structured, play-based early curriculum can make a huge difference to children. I am sad that cuts in child care tax credits will mean that fewer parents will be able to afford access to high-quality provision for their children, despite welcome additional early-years provision for some of the poorest two-year-olds.
	Unfortunately, we tend to grab on to things in politics that we think will be popular where there is not necessarily the evidence to sustain them. Our Government were occasionally guilty of that, and the current Government's proposed marriage premium is also an example. It will skew income distribution to those who are more prosperous and from those who are less prosperous. However, one of the things that we need in this debate is really good evidence. The last time we had a Tory-led Government, they stopped the cohort studies, which tracked the progress of children and young people every seven years, and we now have two cohorts missing. I would strongly urge those on the Treasury Bench to do what they can in this era of cuts to ensure that that mistake is not repeated. Unless we have good quality evidence about what works, we will carry on making mistakes.

Kate Green: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the important issue of tracking and research. I, too, would ask those on the Treasury Bench to respond to that point, because it is important that we sustain such tracking. It is not good enough to look too early at how a particular cohort of children is performing. The advantage of cohort studies is that we can track people all through their lives.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, although I will not take any more, because they are now beginning to eat into my time. We need good quality evidence. If we do not have it, the odds are that we will make more mistakes. There will be debates in Government about such matters, and although investing in a cohort study is not very sexy, I would strongly urge those Ministers in the Chamber to do what they can to ensure that such evidence is collected.
	I want to be brief and talk about the things that need to happen. We know that it is not just teachers who make a difference to children-many Members have spoken about the contribution that parents make-because their peers make a difference too. That is one of the reasons why poor children in prosperous areas overachieve compared with poor children in poorer areas by a factor of 18%. That is why I have some suspicions about the much-trumpeted pupil premium, which does not take into account the fact that poor children in prosperous areas already do much better than those in poorer areas. I would also strongly echo the support that others have given to parenting education. We introduced quite a lot of parenting education, but, unfortunately, the people in my constituency who got most of it were, to be brutal, those who were in trouble with the law or whose children were in trouble with the law. Those people found parenting education quite transformative, as did the parents whose children went to a Catholic infant school in my constituency that offered it. I strongly believe that parenting education can make a huge difference.
	Other Members have referred to the problems of children in care. I cannot compete with Members who talked about the poverty of their childhood-mine was very prosperous-but I remember well how shocked I was at how few things, such as books, CDs and clothes, children in care possessed.
	I want to mention one more way in which the Government could make a real difference to disadvantaged children. Most of my educational advantages and most of the things I learned were the result of being able to read. I got into books and I discovered whole new worlds that would otherwise have been completely beyond me. When I went to university to do English, I remember asking one of my fellow students what she had read as a child. I was shocked when she said that she had read  The Beano, and that was it-yet she had managed to get to university.
	Children can transform their lives through books. One of the most depressing pieces of news that I heard recently was the decision to axe the Booktrust. It has a scheme that gives books to babies and gives every mum a book bag. My constituency is full of mothers who do not read English, and for them those books are transformative. They meant that their children could go into school knowing at which end of a book to begin reading. Members of Muslim families might be readers, but their books are often in Arabic, and start at the back. I urge Ministers to do what they can to revive the Booktrust scheme.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this debate, and I hope that they will pay attention to what he says later, because he has more ideas on how to progress this matter, which is key to many of us across the House. I shall try to keep to his principle of seeing this as a cross-party effort. As an ex-teacher, I have learned lessons today from legal experts and about early intervention.
	I want to talk about an aspect of disadvantage that has not been mentioned yet. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in her place, because she has fought for this for a number of years. We talk about poverty, but there is also disadvantage in regard to race and culture. Year in, year out, she has gone on about the underperformance of black boys in particular, but, after all this time, there is still underperformance among children of Pakistani, Bengali and Kurdish origin. I do not know how many reports on that subject have come through the system.
	As I said, I am an ex-history teacher, and it might seem that I am giving the House a history lesson, although I hope that things can be learned from history. My speech might bring back reminiscences of an old history teacher. I want to say something about my experience. I do not think there is anyone here who cannot think back to either a teacher or a school that made a difference to them. I support the Secretary of State when he said that
	"our schools should be engines of social mobility".
	After 27 years in teaching, I passionately believe that to be the case. I went to a grammar school, and before Members raise their eyes to the ceiling, let me assure them that I am not going to give them a lecture about bringing back grammar schools across the country. My constituency does, however, have the advantage of having the very successful Lancaster royal grammar school for boys and Lancaster girls' grammar school, which I shall say more about later.
	I have 27 years' experience of teaching in comprehensives, 25 of them in social priority schools. The lessons that I have learned apply to Governments of all persuasions, because they are all tempted to take certain actions. Comprehensives were supposed to be the vehicle for raising social mobility. When I started teaching in them, I was told that they would be the grammar schools for everyone. Then, certain schemes were introduced, including mixed-ability classes and special needs. Then we had special needs teaching in the classroom, and special needs teaching outside it. Then came integrated studies, environmental studies and humanities.
	Often, more than 50% of the children whom professionals in those schools were dealing with were entitled to free school meals. Often, for more than 50% of them English was a second language. That is still the case in some of those schools today, although that has not yet been mentioned. Those factors existed alongside all the other problems that hon. Members have pointed out. Every few years, a Government scheme would be introduced in which the teacher was taken out of the classroom and trained to do something new. Any teacher dealing with circumstances of disadvantage will say that the key thing is how much stability, security and aspiration can be given to those children. Why is it that the most way-out education experiments are always done for the lowest achievers and the most disadvantaged?

Andrew Percy: It is precisely this issue of having initiative after initiative after initiative that we must end. One particularly damaging example from recent years, given the important role teachers can play in young people's lives, was hiving off the pastoral role of teachers to other people working in schools. That left teachers simply to deliver the curriculum, never to nurture the children. This provides another example of the constant "initiativitis" from which we must move.

Eric Ollerenshaw: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is always the schools undergoing initiatives that need the greatest stability. That is why I welcome the Secretary of State's reform of the national curriculum, which will put real history and geography back into it. When those schools attained the achievement and stability they wanted and lifted their pupils A to C grades, they faced another problem. When the students left the school or entered university, the subjects they had studied were not counted as equal to other subjects learned in the more advantaged schools. This happened for the best of intentions, but it amounted to underselling. In my experience, however, with security, good teaching and, particularly, a good head teacher, there is nothing those children cannot achieve. They can match anybody and should be given the right to do so. That means having the right to learn the same subjects that are taught in the best schools. That would provide a level playing field and support could be continued through the system.
	I want to give Ministers a case study from Lancaster. In 2003, with the best intentions, the previous Government set up an excellent cluster in Lancashire that linked the primary schools-Bowerham, Dallas Road, Willow Lane, Ridge and Moorside-with the following secondary schools: the Central Lancaster High school, Lancaster Royal Boys' grammar, Lancaster Girls' grammar and nine other schools in Morecambe. Teachers had to apply to participate in the initiative, which was conducted under a programme called "Excellence in Cities", combined with another called the behaviour improvement programme. Civil servants draw up these initiatives, but teachers have to deal with the applications. What this achieved for those schools was, I think, roughly £1 million extra a year, which went to providing learning mentors.
	The scheme was abolished in 2008-after just five years. After a few years, the Government no longer even measured the success of the scheme. It can be measured. Performance at key stage 2 consistently went up year on year above the county average, while exclusions went down far below the county average-and there were some tough primary schools in this cohort. Attendance was also above the county average. Despite the achievements, it was stopped. We were told that the money was being moved to the school development grant. The poor heads were told that they had to reapply to go through the new system, which they did successfully. If we move to the present, we find that the school development grant has been amalgamated into the general schools grant. A successful system, therefore, which stopped being measured-except by the schools-has been moved, moved and moved again by all Governments.
	I believe that this case study provides an example of what the pupil premium can achieve. In my view, the schools can get money through the pupil premium, but it is a year away. There are now 12 months in between, during which the whole system might well collapse. There is a gap in the process of one policy following another policy, which has happened before. It provides a warning to the coalition parties. If we want seriously to achieve things, it is not good enough just to agree to great schemes. What is important is what the schemes do on the ground and their impact on the teachers. That brings me back to my point about the teachers who are trying to create stability for what we call the most disadvantaged pupils-the very children who need that stability. I hope that we can continue monitoring these aspects, which will be key to any and every Government.
	I acknowledge what the previous Government did with, for instance, academies and Sure Start, but we will have a job to do in tying up the pupil premium and what is left of the education maintenance allowance with the national scholarship for students. We need to tie up that golden thread to maintain support for disadvantaged children in every sector of education, and I hope the Government will pick that up and drive with it.
	The lessons that I learn from history are that not only must this issue be dealt with-and it can be dealt with through the provision of good schools and good teachers-but we should pursue it beyond the next month and the next scheme.

Andrea Leadsom: Of all the fascinating and important topics that we discuss in the Chamber, none is more important than this, and it is perhaps the topic about which I personally feel most passionate.
	You may observe, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am wearing red. You may also observe that, although we are not allowed props, I am wearing a piece of clothing that I am allowed: a hat, which I wish to take off to the Opposition for having had the compassion to create the Sure Start centres. That is enough theatre; although all Members would agree that there is much to be done to improve Sure Start centres, they represent a huge move in the right direction, and the fact that there is so much consensus across the House on the need to focus on the earliest years is immensely positive.
	I want to describe my experiences as chairman for 10 years of a charity called OXPIP-the Oxford Parent Infant Project. It is based in Oxford, and is now co-located with Rose Hill children's centre, an incredibly important centre in one of the most deprived areas in the country which has been operating for a long time. During my 10 years as chairman, OXPIP has focused, throughout Oxfordshire, on delivering psychotherapeutic support for families who are struggling to bond with their newborn babies.
	I shall now give a short master class in early infant brain development, which is mentioned in the reports from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on early intervention. This really is the key to mending our society, creating the society for which we all strive, and solving many of the problems that we end up firefighting in politics.
	When a baby is born, he has only the "fight or flight" instinct, rather like an animal. He does not possess the social part of the brain, the frontal cortex, which enables us to form relationships, see the world as a good place, and have hope and aspiration. That part of the brain develops later, and the peak period of its development occurs when the baby is between six and 18 months old. It develops as a result of secure attachment to a principal carer, who is normally the mum but could be the dad, the nanny, the granny or even the next-door neighbour. That first important relationship establishes the baby's lifelong mental health opportunities.
	If a baby is neglected, abused or unloved during the first 18 months or two years of its life-or, worse still, is treated inconsistently-its neural pathways and brain development will reflect that, not just for the moment but for the rest of its life. Leaving a baby to scream and scream will have two profound impacts on that baby. I am not talking about our desire to leave the baby to cry for a while because we are sick and tired of marching him up and down; I am talking about leaving him to cry night after night.
	First, the baby's level of cortisol-the stress hormone-will be considerably raised. If it remains raised for a long period, it will reach a danger point, and will start to damage the baby's immune system. Secondly, the baby will develop a higher level of tolerance to its own stress hormone. Whereas you or I might be excited by a good hand at cards, a baby with a high tolerance to its own stress level might, in later life, feel the need to beat someone up, spray-paint something, or become involved with drugs in order to get the kick that we might get from a hand of whist. There is a real scientific reaction to constant high levels of stress experienced at a very young age.
	If a baby does not experience that secure attachment during the peak period of development of his frontal cortex, his brain development will be damaged over time, and that damage will be permanent. So the baby who is constantly neglected will grow up thinking that neglect is a feature of life and will have a higher likelihood of being depressive, possibly throughout life, of feeling a failure and of being unable to make friends. Likewise, people who are abused and treated inconsistently have a chance of being unable to form decent relationships in later life. All these things are, of course, on a spectrum: some horrifying statistics suggest that 40% of five-year-olds in this country are not securely attached. Of course not all those people will go on to have problems of violence, depression or drug taking, but some of them will. John Lennon said "All you need is love" and that could not be truer, as a growing raft of scientific evidence demonstrates.
	A fundamental problem is that if a girl does not form a secure attachment to her mum as a baby, she may lack the physical brain ability to empathise with her own baby when she goes on to have one. So we end up with a cycle of misery that passes down through generations. The ability to feel that the world is a nice place, to get on in life, to form lasting relationships and so on also affects someone's chances of a decent job and, lo and behold, their prospects in the workplace, their prospects for having a long-lasting relationship and so on. So that cycle of misery is a bit chicken and egg: does the poverty come first or does the lack of attachment come first? We are not putting nearly enough focus on the importance of early attachment and on providing that support.
	For the past 12 years, OXPIP has been providing psychotherapeutic support for families and their babies who are struggling, and we have had astonishing results: babies have been taken off the child protection list; countless families have said that they had not realised just how they were reliving their own earliest experiences with their own families; and we have managed to break that cycle of deprivation. From a political point of view, prevention is not only so much kinder, but so much cheaper than cure. So I wish to conclude by issuing a call to action. There are things that the Government can do, and I wish to make some very specific recommendations.
	First, I agree completely with the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on the desperate need for more evidence. OXPIP has been working for 12 years but we have always failed to get any proper quantitative research done because of the ethical problems involved in leaving one group to suffer while interventions are made with another group. We have somehow to get around that and find ways to build up the evidence. I am planning to launch NORPIP-the Northamptonshire parent infant project-this year, with support from the director of children's services, and I hope to use that as a model for how this can be done across the country.
	Importantly, the children's centres must be brought to the centre of all policy making. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead had made the great suggestion-I am not sure whether it was to me or whether it is in his paper-of making people sign up for child benefit in a children's centre, to ensure that they are not stigmatised in any way. Most importantly, the Government need to re-examine the adoption legislation to ensure that babies can be adopted before the age of two, because any time after that is simply too late. Training for health visitors and midwives in the crucial importance of early attachment, improving nursery protocols to focus on the attachment needs of babies, and parenting training in classes can also all prove so valuable. I wish to finish by saying that cross-party support is key and I am so glad that we are seeing an example of it today.

Sam Gyimah: The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) made an observation about the number of Members here to debate this issue compared with the number who debated the horse racing levy. The other observation that I would make is that so many Members of the new intake are here on a Thursday afternoon to debate this subject. That is so especially because most of us will have stated at some point in our political campaigns that making life better for other people was our motivation for getting into politics. We have my hon. Friends the Members for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and for Salisbury (John Glen) to thank for getting this debate together. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has been focused on this subject for a very long time. Before he came to this place he was involved with the Bow Group, where he examined the causes of debt, deprivation and despair. In this House, he has set up the all-party group on credit unions. So helping the disadvantaged is something that he is committed to, and I am glad that he has given us all the opportunity to speak in this debate.
	What is interesting about this debate is the amount of consensus-something that we do not often get in the Chamber-as well as the fact that we are not attacking each other's motives. We do not always get that in the Chamber. The consensus is that the early years to which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead referred in his excellent report as the "foundation years" are critical to one's life chances. That is when boundaries are set and when cognitive functions are developed.
	We need only consider the difference that the little things, such as reading to a child, can make. If I look back at my own life, it was traumatic in the early years when my parents split up when I was four or five years old. I remember my mother spending a lot of time reading to me in her very strong way. I could not get away from having an hour or two hours of reading with her every evening and, at the time, I hated every moment of it. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said, however, if a child cannot read at school, nothing else works. It was important, and I can understand it now. Whenever I complained, she used to throw the scriptures back in my face: train a child in the way they should go and when they grow they will not depart from it. Now, at the age of 34, I can in some way understand what she was trying to achieve.
	That is based on my experience and we all have our own individual experiences-some good, some bad, and some to which we are indifferent. The interesting thing about what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead has done is that he has grounded some people's gut feeling in analytical work. I have commented on what he said about the foundation years, but he has also come up with a set of life chances indicators, all of which are important. What excited me most as I read his report was the fact that it changed the terms of the debate-moving from considering static indicators, such as poverty, to considering this as a life chances issue. The hard data and the research that back them up mean that we can now move on and come up with some decent polices. By move on, I mean that we can move away from the predominant approach of the previous Labour Government, which was the redistributive approach of all-round tax credits, to the approach that some of us on the Government Benches might have had, which is that parenting and the family are outside the responsibility of the state. In fact, if someone is responsible, they know what it means to be a parent, so what business does the state have to comment on it?
	We all agree that parenting is at the core of this matter. It is the single biggest responsibility that we can take on as human beings but, interestingly enough, it is the one that nobody trains for. We train if we want to play the piano, or to learn how to speak in public. One can train for almost everything except being a parent. When training does exist, the situation has often irrevocably broken down. As the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, state intervention happens when people have had problems with the law, by which time it is probably too late. I find it interesting that some of the comments that we have come up with suggest having an intervention earlier on in the process, before things go wrong. Why is that important? It is hard to be a parent. The knowledge that most people have comes from grandparents or their own experience, and we only have to look at the popularity of the site Mumsnet to know that it is all about shared knowledge. Those who live in an area where there is a lot of good shared knowledge can learn from it, but if they live in a part of the country without that knowledge, they are left to their own devices. People make mistakes, sometimes with the best of intentions.
	Let me turn to the point I want to focus on, as I have to rush through this. Let us not be fatalistic. Some parents will struggle and some parents will do a good job, but peer pressure might mean that their children will go off the rails. Sometimes the school is where things go right or wrong, and sometimes it is the local environment. In focusing on the early years, we should not automatically consign disadvantaged or unconventional families to an at-risk group. Let us not say that people have only one life chance, as so many things happen in the course of someone's life that can make a difference to their life chances. There is overwhelming evidence about the early years that we need to focus on, but let us not ignore the other stages in their life. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston said that we should continue to invest throughout someone's life, but that is probably where I slightly disagree with her. It is interesting to move away from seeing this issue as purely one of resources and from thinking that the problem will be addressed by investing more and more. Deep character development, which is how I would sum all this up, does not depend on wealth. One piece of information that I came across in the report of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead is that Chinese families-

Kate Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sam Gyimah: I need to race on-I am terribly sorry. In Chinese families there is not the same correlation between poverty and the outcomes we see in other types of family. While we focus on the early years, I would like us to reintroduce the concept of character into public discourse and to discuss how to bring up and raise children to improve their life chances. When I talk about character, I mean self-discipline and a child saying, "I am not going to watch TV now; I need to do my homework." I mean a child showing respect to others and knowing that when they go to school and someone gets on their nerves, they should not just thump that person, but should report them to the teacher. Some academics call these considerations pro-social norms. This is something that happens at home and we should not be afraid to talk about character in our public discourse. Character is a function not of wealth but of values and we should be happy to speak about it.

Mark Pawsey: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate and I acknowledge the efforts of my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (John Glen) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) in enabling it to take place. We have heard much about the lifetime consequences of child poverty for individuals on a personal level and that many of the costly and damaging problems our society faces arise as a result of the right support not being given to our children in their early years. I came across many statistics in researching this issue, and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) has reminded us that a child's development score at as early as 22 months can be an accurate predictor of their educational outcome at 26. We all have an obligation to work to change such indicators.
	I want to talk about the importance of the family unit, the vital role of the extended family and the importance of support, with a sense of balance, as well as one or two issues around education. As someone who believes in the importance of a strong family unit, I believe that parents are the key drivers in determining their children's life chances. I am pleased that instead of concentrating on the negative aspects of parenthood, the report of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) focuses on ideas to enable parents to achieve their aspirations for their children. Evidence shows the benefits of marriage for a child's development and that the children of married parents do better on a number of aspects relating to social and emotional development.

Kate Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Pawsey: I will continue if I may.
	We have heard about the importance of the father's role in minimising the risk of poor outcomes. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) reminded us about the absence of a male role model in the lives of many disadvantaged children. I want to offer support for the role of grandparents in the family unit, which often seems to be an all-or-nothing arrangement in that they are either ever-present or completely absent. The break-up of the family unit means that some grandparents no longer have a relationship with their own children and, as a consequence, have no relationship with their grandchildren. When neither the parents nor the grandparents have the time or skill to support the child, there is, of course, a role for the state to step in.
	My experience as a father echoes that of other fathers here, which is that absolutely nothing prepares one for the burdens of parenthood and that one has no idea of the implications for one's own life. For young mothers and fathers, who are often ill-prepared for parenthood, Sure Start centres have helped to provide the support they need. Having visited Sure Start in my constituency, I recognise its value and believe those important resources and facilities should be targeted in the areas of greatest need. I fully support the proposals to open Sure Start centres to the market so that private companies may bid to run them.
	It is important to mention maternity and paternity provisions, because only this week the Deputy Prime Minister announced proposals to allow couples to share maternity leave. I am pleased that the rules will allow either parent to care for their child, but as a former business owner I must sound a note of caution. It is necessary to highlight the difficulties that exist between reconciling what is good from a child development perspective with the needs of people running small businesses in particular. The director general of the British Chambers of Commerce has asked valid questions about how employers are expected to plan and arrange cover with this increasingly flexible system.
	The report by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) highlights that it is crucial to recognise that the educational cycle begins at birth. A child's development does not start from the day they enter primary school, and we should start counting development from birth. In the education system, children do not reach year 1 until they are five years old, and we have already heard from other hon. Members that five is often too late for children who are risk. I am pleased that the report of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) also draws attention to this issue.
	Only 20% of young people in the poorest households gain five or more A* to C grades at GCSE, compared with 75% of those from the richest families, so the pupil premium is crucial. If we want children from poorer families to get to university, we must ensure that the additional targeted resources will give them a head start. Providing money for each pupil from a deprived background means that head teachers will have more money to spend on those children.
	The right hon. Gentleman's report also refers to the importance of good teaching between the ages 14 to 16 in reducing the likelihood of children trying cannabis, playing truant or becoming a frequent smoker or drinker. In this context, I want to mention the benefits of selective education. At one time, that was seen as the best way of providing bright children from less well-off backgrounds with the best opportunities in life. My constituency of Rugby has an excellent system, and as both a product of that system and a parent of children who have gone through that system, I know many people who have benefited immensely from the excellent teaching and extra-curricular activities on offer at such schools.
	I am pleased with the measures that the Government have already introduced, such as the refocusing of Sure Start and the pupil premium. I hope that the Government's longer-term strategy to be announced in March will take into account not only the conclusions of the reports of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, but the valuable contributions to this debate.

David Mowat: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing the debate and I applaud Members on both sides of the House for the good temper in which it has been held. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) who spoke just before me in a debate on life chances. He and I started 43 years ago in the same class. I sat three behind him, and I am delighted that his life chances have not been overly impacted by that experience.
	We are talking today about social mobility, which, to me, is the hallmark of a civilised society. It is a subject that probably 650 Members on both sides of the House would agree really matters. It really matters that we get this right. I want to speak on one aspect of this, and it is about how we measure it and targets. Occasionally targets get a bad press and people say that we should not have so many, but in this area, targets are important. The problem is that we have confused three different things-poverty, inequality and life chances. Those three are quite different. They are heavily correlated, but they are not the same, and the danger is that if we apply a policy to the wrong one, or try to affect another, we will get the wrong outcomes.
	My concern is that we have made the measurement of inequality a proxy for success in that area. We have discussed the intention of the last Prime Minister but one to eradicate child poverty by 2020, which is a noble ambition, but the principal definition used for that purpose-median income at 60%-is a measure of inequality, not poverty. The risk is that money is spent sub-optimally and that, even though we make transfer payments of £150 billion over a period, we will still be ranked 21st out of 21 countries in a UNICEF report.

Kate Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Mowat: I apologise for being the third Government Member not to give way, but we have been asked to rattle through.
	One of the most important aspects of the report produced by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is the indices for life chances. Targets matter, and if we could start to measure the correct things, it is possible that we could really start to make a difference in those outcomes.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) gave the example of the Chinese community and the fact that in schools, the poorest Chinese children outperform children from all other parts of society, except the richest Chinese children. That shows that something is happening that is not just about money. I have conceded that everything is correlated, but it is not just about money; it is about attitude. The words in the right hon. Gentleman's report that I found the most useful in that context were those relating to positive parenting. "Positive parenting" is a strong phrase that describes the breeding of self-confidence and aspiration in some communities. I hope that the Government will test those indices and take them up if they find them valuable, because we need a proxy for social mobility that is not the same as some of those embedded in the Child Poverty Act 2010.
	I will make a final point on a different subject. We can continue what we are doing on educational attainment, but we must also create jobs and ensure that the people leaving our universities are able to take up the opportunities that will exist in the world over the next few years. That relates increasingly to a knowledge of applied science, engineering and technology. I applaud what the coalition Government are doing on apprenticeships. One of the most significant policy failures of the past 20 years has been that we have succeeded in increasing the number of people who go to university by a factor of five, while at the same time fewer of them are studying applied science and engineering. That is at a time when the world is moving towards more advanced manufacturing and all that goes with it. I will finish by reiterating that social mobility is the hallmark of a civilized society. The coalition Government, who are supportive of that aim, should be ready to be judged by their success on that, or lack thereof, over the next few years. That is important to us all.

Neil Carmichael: It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat). He has given the coalition Government a proper test, and rightly so, because it is important that they should have such a test. The phrase "disadvantaged children" is not an attractive one, and we should be embarrassed by the fact that we have to talk about it so often in this country. It certainly embarrasses me and often has. The experience of meeting a young person who is unable to communicate properly, or read and so forth, can be heartrending. One has only to think of the waste that we allow to happen, with so many people who could do so much being left behind. We really need to address the whole issue of disadvantaged children.
	Social mobility is critical. We want a mobile society, and that mobility depends on everyone being able to move around. They cannot do so because there are too many roadblocks. I shall refer to a few and suggest some ways in which we might deal with them.
	First, we have rightly talked about education, but too many children leave the education system without being equipped to communicate properly and without the confidence to get around and about their lives. Therefore, we must ensure that the education system makes sure, at the very least, that all children can read, write and communicate properly. If we do not do so, we will obviously fail them, but we will fail society as well, and, as a member of the Education Committee, one thing that I constantly worry about is how we ensure that our schools system delivers such results.
	The pupil premium and so forth are very important, and we must encourage all those who are entitled to collect it to do so. The question of stigma often arises, however, so we need to think about that in terms of the policy. The very fact that we need the pupil premium is a measure of our failure, but we have talked about measures throughout the debate, or at least while I have been present, so let us recognise that we have to deal with a big measure.
	Secondly, education is critical, but there are other roadblocks. I am struck by the fact that we do not deal holistically with early years issues. That is why I was so impressed by the work of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). Alongside all the usual issues, the health of a young person also matters, so we have to ensure that, in the foundation years, as described in the right hon. Gentleman's review, we consider not just education, but health care and other factors. We need an holistic approach at that level.
	My third point, which strikes me every time I go abroad, especially when I focus on planning and housing development, as I did before becoming a Member, is the importance of a child's environment. That includes the quality of their homes, the way in which they play and interact with each other, and how families interact with each other. I have been to some fascinating places, in Rotterdam for example, where local communities with really well designed housing developments come together, look after each other, spot problems, allow families to develop and ensure that fewer children are disadvantaged. It is, therefore, important for us to think about the environment. Too much of our housing just does not allow such family life or social development between families, so I want to ram home the point that we have to improve our planning system.
	I have talked about education because I am on the Education Committee, but we need to highlight a few more issues that have cropped up during its work. One issue is the number of children who care for somebody else. We cannot expect that to be good for them or for anybody in their near neighbourhood; it is totally wrong. The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who is also a member of the Committee, rightly rammed home the point that it is unacceptable to ignore that group in the context of school discipline, but it is unacceptable to ignore it in any context. We have to calibrate the problem and ensure that we start to do something about the fact that more than 10% of children scuttle back home after a day at school to look after somebody in their household. We need to address that problem, do we not?
	Also on the subject of education, we have to think about the early years and encourage proper care and attention for the child as well as where they come from and the family framework in which they are involved.
	That brings me to another example from Europe that we need to consider. On the continent we often see the extended family approach, but we do not see it here. We should be encouraging people to think more in terms of their whole family and its different generations. That is linked to other points that I made about planning, health care and education.
	We have to be far more inclusive and holistic, and much more demanding that our institutions and charities co-operate with each other to share information more effectively and ensure that local government stops being so silo-based.

Andrea Leadsom: I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the charity OXPIP, with which I have been involved for a long time and which works well with the children's centre in Oxford. There is great potential for the voluntary sector to work closely with statutory agencies to deliver exactly the sort of help to which he is referring.

Neil Carmichael: I thank my hon. Friend. That is a very important example of what is necessary, but we need to see it across the piece.
	Government can talk about what they want to happen, but ultimately we have to ensure that it does happen. Delivery is crucial, as is measuring, assessing and understanding the problems. If we do not know what is happening after we have said that something should happen, we are failing completely. We must be holistic, check up, and never, ever take our eye off the ball.

Jeremy Lefroy: In common with all colleagues, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and for Salisbury (John Glen) for helping to arrange this debate. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) for their reports. Before I was elected to this House, the hon. Member for Nottingham North gave an excellent talk in my constituency which opened my eyes to this subject for pretty much the first time. I am grateful that the Government have sought to enlist those Members' expertise.
	There is great expertise, too, among Government Front Benchers, to whom I also pay tribute. I remember a visit to my constituency by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who travelled an awfully long way to find out about a particular scheme that was going on at Wolgarston high school in Penkridge. He did not have to do it, but he did so because he was interested.
	I should like to take up three points from the report by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. The first is the key fact that we have to get more young men, in particular, into work. That is absolutely essential. The unemployment figures that came out yesterday were disturbing, and the Government must address that. I look forward to the Work programme coming into place, but I urge the Government to ensure that in the months before that happens people do not drop out of the system. I know that things have been done to address that potential problem.
	I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and various other Members said about the importance of having men involved in primary teaching. This week, I was at St Michael's first school in Penkridge in my constituency, where the head made that very point, saying that there were not enough men in primary teaching and she would love to see more come into it. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead makes the same point about children's centres:
	"The lack of male staff is an equally pressing issue needing to be addressed."

Sarah Newton: Does my hon. Friend agree that to address that imbalance, we might encourage more men to volunteer? In my town of Falmouth, the Rotary club does excellent work in a local primary school to help with reading, which has really improved reading standards.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I remind Members that they must speak to the Chair and not in the opposite direction.

Jeremy Lefroy: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In my constituency, the Rotary club does work on reading in Doxey primary school. I remember how much I enjoyed reading to my children. I am not sure whether the feeling was mutual, although they told me later that it was.
	My second point, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and many other hon. Members, is the critical role of children's centres. We should ensure that, with the changes, we do not lose what has been achieved. The report by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead states that Sure Start centres
	"should maintain some universal services so that Centres are welcoming, inclusive, socially mixed and non-stigmatising, but aim to target services towards those who can benefit from them most."
	I urge the Government to take note of that, and I am sure that they will.
	My third point regards television and media. I take up a point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), who is no longer in his place, about Staffordshire university- [ Interruption. ] I beg his pardon; I missed him. He referred to a particular media studies course at Staffordshire university. I must say that Staffordshire university has a very high reputation in media studies and is one of the major institutions in the country for developing state-of-the-art video games technology, which is a major export industry for this country. I just want to give some balance to the impression that people may have got from his comment, which I am sure was not intended as a generalisation.
	The right hon. Member for Birkenhead talks about the role of the BBC. He recommends that it kitemark the children's programmes that are most beneficial to parents in the development of language. I urge the BBC and other broadcasters to pay attention to that.
	I grew up in a house without a television, and indeed still live in a house without one. I do not recommend that for everybody, although it has certainly done me, my family and my children no harm. However, I do think that parents should be encouraged to consider their use of television, and whether it is necessary to have one in every room in the house, including the bedrooms. Perhaps television could become a social activity with the whole family watching it together, rather than an individual activity with everybody watching their own programmes.
	I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Slough about reading. Again, that is absolutely essential and something that we must never forget. I underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) about character-something that is sometimes forgotten. We have to have qualitative, not just quantitative, measures in approaching this subject.
	I and my family spent many years living in Tanzania. A Swahili proverb says, "It takes a whole village to raise a child." Many hon. Members have made that point in various ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) talked about the importance of community as well as family. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) talked about the way in which the built environment can help or hinder the sense of community.
	I look forward to several further debates on this matter in this Parliament. It is absolutely essential that we take note of everything that has been said today and return to it time and again to see what progress is being made. We are talking about something that is vital to the future of this country and of our children, and it is essential that we do not just leave it to one debate and one day in a Parliament.

Toby Perkins: I begin by congratulating all the Members who have contributed to an excellent debate, and the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on bringing the debate before us. He started by focusing on the fact that what happens outside school is as important as what goes on inside, if not more so. That was a powerful argument for the value of youth services and is linked to the fact that most of the most deprived children in our country can be pinpointed within certain constituencies. That is not to say that Conservative Members do not have deprived children in their constituencies, which of course they do, but it is important to reflect on the fact that children who are brought up surrounded by deprivation are more likely to learn bad habits and come into contact with people who will lead them in the wrong direction.
	Members of all parties have welcomed the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). His recent report "The Foundation Years" is incredibly valuable, and I add my voice to those that have paid tribute to both him and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who appears to have been talking about early intervention almost since he was a child himself.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead explained his experiences at Birkenhead junior school, which reflected some of mine at Spire junior school in Chesterfield, in my constituency, which has more than 70% of its pupils on free school meals but is rated as "outstanding" by Ofsted and was the venue for the Deputy Prime Minister launching the pupil premium.
	In considering deprived communities, I should like to focus on the importance of people throughout the education sector supporting children throughout the educational and demographic range. The hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who is no longer in her place, made an important contribution about the need to build confidence and self-esteem in children. That is a responsibility not just of parents but all of us who have the best interests of children and youths at heart. She also made an important plea for art, drama and sport not to be overlooked, and I hope that the Secretary of State will take that point seriously in talking about the new direction of the curriculum.
	The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson)-I see that he is definitely still in his place-focused on the fact that the changes we need to see, to which all Members seem to be committed, will not happen without investment. The sentiment that it is not all about money is absolutely right, of course, but it is partly about money and we need to ensure that the right contributions are made.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) joined the hon. Members for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead in focusing on the importance of Sure Start children's centres in delivering services. At a time when some Sure Start centres are under threat-I was told recently of the potential closure of six in Derby-that provided all of us with a timely reminder that the local authority cuts will put tremendous pressure on councils. We all need to fight for the facilities in our communities.
	The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) said that eradicating child poverty was a key objective of both parties. In fact, "child poverty" is something of a misnomer, because what we really mean is that we want to eradicate poverty. Children are generally poor because their parents are poor, so when we talk about benefit policy and creating jobs, we must remember that children's poverty does not happen in isolation from the circumstances of their parents.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) was one of the few to reflect on the fact that the debate was not just about the early years. They are vital, but continuing to support children throughout their education, whatever direction that might take, is key. The change to education maintenance allowance is an important factor to consider in respect of disadvantaged children and young people. She also focused on the importance of evidence and research-based policy, as opposed to policy based on ideology or policy that is not properly researched.
	The hon. Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) spoke of policy experimentation within the education sector. In the light of that, it was interesting that they made positive comments on the raft of changes we have seen in education in just a few short months, including the introduction of free schools, and academies being given extra money if they are outstanding, unlike under the previous policy whereby money was given to the more deprived schools. There has also been a dramatic change of direction in that more schools are now judged against the English baccalaureate-many will now be viewed as failing, even though they were unaware that those were the rules by which they were playing.
	The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire informed us of some of the science behind perpetuating disadvantage, which was a valuable and useful contribution to the debate.
	In pursuing the arguments made by right hon. and hon. Members, I should like to reflect briefly on some of the steps taken by the previous Government to make the life chances of our most disadvantaged children better. They included free nursery places and Sure Start, which was a visionary decision that has made a big difference. Sure Start has a lot more potential to make an even greater difference to disadvantaged children. Increased out-of-school provision and increased investment in youth services have made a key difference in more deprived communities, as have the improvement in GCSE outcomes and literacy and numeracy, and the measures taken to eradicate poverty. They are all significant strides in the right direction, as is evidenced by the increase in the number of children on free school meals who go to university.
	However, as hon. Members on both sides of the House reflected, and given the Government's decision to pursue the issue, there is still much to do. The Opposition agree with the sentiments articulated by the Government on the need to focus on early years, outreach work and health visitors. The decision to invite my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North to provide reports was welcome. We hope that they will be given resources and the means to deliver their ends.
	The extra money for pet projects and the cuts to EMA, Sure Start and local authority funding must be seen in the context of what the Government are trying to achieve. The commitment of the House to reducing inequalities in educational attainment has been heard loud and clear on both sides of the Chamber. A consensus seems to have formed around the importance of early intervention and eradicating child poverty, and we will be watching to see whether this Government's policy helps to reduce that gap or whether it moves more people into poverty. Our children deserve the best. The Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North can be assured that the party that has always done more than any other to improve social mobility, with fairness at its core, will listen, learn and keep fighting for the best outcome for our children.

Sarah Teather: I congratulate the hon. Members for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and for Salisbury (John Glen) on securing this debate. I offer the House a heartfelt apology for arriving a few minutes late and missing the beginning of the former's speech. I am always very particular about being on time, and I am extremely embarrassed that I missed that.
	This has been a fantastic debate-really, really interesting. The tone has been very good. Listening to enormous expertise, often from new Members, gives me great hope that the issue of disadvantaged children will continue to be championed by all parties. It is clear that we want a sustainable solution to this problem. The fact that there is so much interest, especially among new Members on both sides of the House, gives me great hope that we shall achieve that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire closed his speech with the key points on which we need to focus-life chances, the quality of the home environment and better evidence. His remarks set the scene and his themes were picked up by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) rightly stressed that the issue has preoccupied Governments for a long time. It is a difficult problem to tackle and it requires complex solutions. The Government are extremely grateful for his report, as we are for the interim report by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), which was published yesterday. He made the point that, too often, the life race is over by five. Early years are life-changing, sometimes positively and sometimes negatively, and we need a holistic approach to tackling the issues that arise from that.
	My hon. Friend the Members for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) and for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) spoke about the importance of quality teaching and its role in improving self-esteem. The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) made several interesting and important points, including the need for us to focus on runaway children. The Government take that issue seriously, and I hope to assure her that the Department for Education is already working on the report that was recently produced by Barnardo's. She also raised some important points about the performance framework. The Government want to move more to an outcomes focus rather than an inputs focus, and we are working with the sector and local authorities to try to define that performance framework. We want to pilot payment by results to try to incentivise the use of evidence-based programmes-the kind of evidence-based programmes that were illustrated in the report from the hon. Member for Nottingham North.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) spoke with great expertise from her perspective as a family lawyer. She made one point that caught my attention about the need, when working with someone with a drug or alcohol problem, to look holistically at the family and not deal only with the person presenting a problem. That was picked up in the Government's drug strategy.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) raised the issue of parents and relationships. What we know from the evidence is that there are several pinch points of enormous stress in relationships, especially when young-or older-couples have their first child. Without wanting to preach about how families organise themselves, the Government will make that the focus of their relationship support. It is a tragedy when a relationship breaks down because the support is not available to allow people to get over difficulties, or they are not equipped to do so. The Government have invested £7.5 million a year across this comprehensive spending review period and, in addition, have given £500,000 to the voluntary sector to train Sure Start children's centres practitioners to help to identify these issues.
	The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)-I always enjoy listening to her, even if I do not always agree with her-made several important points about parenting skills, an issue that was also picked up by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah). The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston will be well aware-she has raised the issue with me before in Education questions-that parenting programmes are an important part of Sure Start children's centres, and some of the evidence-based programmes that the hon. Member for Nottingham North was picking up yesterday highlight that issue in particular. However, the solutions do not always have to be formal. Several hon. Members spoke about the role of parent-toddler groups, and such peer support can be important for parents who can pick up skills and techniques for dealing with issues as they arise.
	The hon. Member for Slough made several interesting points, but a debate began in her speech about the importance of male role models-something that the Government take seriously. Indeed, the coalition document states that we want to increase the number of men in early education. It is a very complicated problem to solve. It is as much about the esteem of early-years practitioners as any of the other reasons picked up by hon. Members during the debate. The Government have started a new programme based on Teach First called New Leaders in Early Years, which is intended to pick up graduates. We hope that it will entice young men to enter the early-years profession for different reasons and target some more academic approaches, which would kill two birds with one stone in terms of what we are trying to do on quality in early years.
	The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) spoke about the role of the big society, and may I congratulate him on fulfilling his maiden speech pledge already? It must be a world record.
	The quality of the debate has been extremely high. As Members on both sides have said, it is unacceptable that in the 21st century, and in one of the richest countries in the world, the circumstances of a person's birth, rather than their ability, dictate their outcomes in life. We know that unfortunately many poor families struggle with the basics, while the wealthiest, who often live just a few streets away, can get on in life. Some children never achieve their potential because of the barriers that are thrown in their way, while their wealthier neighbours clear hurdles with ease. I see that in my own constituency.
	The barriers that children face, often very early in life, affect their life chances forever. Again I see this, I am afraid, in my own constituency. There is the staggering statistic that a child born in Harlesden, in the heart of my constituency, is likely to die, on average, more than 10 years earlier than a child born in Kensington, which is just a few miles away. Many Members commented on the fact that there are complicated relationships between the different elements of disadvantage, and very complicated relationships between that and income. Income is extremely important, but it is not the only problem, and if we are to tackle this in the long term we need to consider the causes and factors other than income.

Dan Rogerson: Hon. Members have drawn to the House's attention particular issues concerning those in the care system and children who are themselves carers. I would like to add a group that has not been mentioned: those in kinship care arrangements with grandparents, parents, siblings or other relatives. We need to do more, and encourage local authorities to do more, to ensure that they are given the support that those who foster, for example, get.

Sarah Teather: I agree with my hon. Friend. Eileen Munro is considering that as part of her review of social care. We need to encourage local authorities to think about all the options for kinship care, including with grandparents, before a child is taken into care.
	I said that income is vital, and the fact that the Government recognise that is spelt out in the coalition agreement, which states that we will meet the targets set out in the Child Poverty Act 2010. However, we intend to do it with a slightly different focus from the previous Government. We want to put a lot of effort into trying to tackle the underlying issues affecting a child's life and, in particular, the entrenched disadvantage that gets passed from one generation to another. The interim report from the hon. Member for Nottingham North made clear just how vital intervening early is. For those who have not seen his interim report, let me say that the front cover contains a scan of a child's brain at a very young age, and already we can see how things are hardwired-that was picked up by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). The need to intervene early is precisely why the Government have invested extra money in disadvantaged two-year-olds. We know that quality early education at that stage makes a huge difference.
	The hon. Member for Slough picked up on a point about what happens with poorer children when they mix with children from other backgrounds. It demonstrates the reasons I felt strongly that we needed to extend the early-years free entitlement from 12.5 hours to 15 hours and to continue with that despite the difficult circumstances. That universal offer for three and four-year-olds is extremely important. The quality of social mixing makes a big difference to a child's chances. I hope that bringing that down to all disadvantaged two-year-olds will make a significant difference to children's lives. Indeed, we intend to legislate to make that an entitlement in the education Bill that will be published shortly.
	Similarly, it is vital that Sure Start is accessible to all, but we need a better focus on disadvantaged families. As I said just a minute ago in response to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, we intend to use payment by results to ensure that we focus on using evidence-based programmes better. That is also why we have invested extra money in health visitors, because outreach is vital, as was pointed out earlier. We need to ensure that we get to those families in difficulty, bringing them into centres so that we can focus the extra help and evidence-based programmes that we are using on them. My colleagues in the Department of Health have also announced extra investment in the family nurse partnership, a fantastic scheme that has had good results and shown promise, particularly in working with young families.
	The Government have also asked Dame Clare Tickell to review the early-years foundation stage, to see whether we can simplify some of the burdens, but retain all the quality, because it has done so much to improve outcomes for young people at that age, and also to think about how we can get services to work more closely together. That is already the focus of some of her thinking, as she looks at how we can utilise other health professionals to ensure that we serve the most disadvantaged children best. That focus on narrowing the gap is also why the Government feel so strongly that we need to invest in the pupil premium, and there will be an extra £2.5 billion for schools by the end of the spending review period to ensure that we can focus on the most disadvantaged children.
	I am running out of time, and there are many more points that I would like to respond to. I am extremely grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to this very good debate. I hope that there will be many more opportunities to debate the issue over the course of the Parliament, because the ideas that we have heard, particularly from those with expertise in this area, are helpful to us in formulating policy.

Damian Hinds: We have had a very good debate this afternoon, which has been a worthy use of Back-Bench time, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee once again for granting it.
	The debate was effectively brought to life right at the outset by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who reminded us that too many children arrive at school not recognising their own name, or unable to remove their coats or hold a crayon. We have had a wide-ranging debate since then, with many hon. Members drawing on their expertise and experience, from both their personal journeys and their paid and voluntary work. The passion and commitment of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) was clear from his response from the Opposition Front Bench. My hon. Friend the Minister's response also made clear how central the new Government's agenda on this issue is to their programme, even in these difficult economic times.
	Although this debate will stop here in less than 90 seconds, in a broader sense it will continue. One encouraging thing from this afternoon has been the number of Members here from the new intake. One thing that I hope will come out of that is the formation an all-party group on social mobility, which I hope will be a vehicle whereby we can contribute to the debate.
	I will close by mentioning two stories from this afternoon that really struck me. The first was from my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who talked about the stopwatch, which hon. Members will remember; the second was from my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who quoted Lennon and McCartney when she said, "All you need is love". Those two things reminded me strongly of the value of encouragement and the power of individuals to make a difference, and were a timely reminder that every programme or strategy amounts to a series of very human interventions. I remarked at the start of this debate that the issues that we have been talking about today lie at the heart of why so many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, were motivated to come into politics. That has certainly been clear this afternoon.
	  Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of improving life chances for disadvantaged children.

AIR PASSENGER DUTY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr Newmark.)

Diane Abbott: I am very glad indeed to have the opportunity to raise in the House of Commons the vital issue of the effect of air passenger duty changes on the Caribbean.
	I want to begin by outlining what is intrinsically wrong with the changes-namely, the way in which the duty is calculated. No one in the Chamber is against environmental measures designed to bear down on excessive airline travel, and no one wants the British Treasury to lose money, but the way in which the duties have been calculated, and the way in which the zones have been worked out, are indefensible. The zones are calculated on the basis of where a capital city is. For instance, because the capital of the United States is Washington DC, one would pay less duty under this system to fly to Hawaii or Los Angeles than to fly to the Caribbean. How can that be right? How can it be cheaper to fly those vast distances than to fly to the Caribbean? These are issues of fairness, equity and transparency.
	The flight tax to the Caribbean increased by 25% on 1 November 2009. In November 2010, the tax on flights from the UK to the Caribbean increased by a further 50% in all classes of travel. At present, passengers travelling to the Caribbean pay £75 per person in economy and £150 per person in all other classes. There is a substantial amount of traffic between Britain and the Caribbean, particularly at holiday times. As a member of the Jamaican diaspora, I sometimes find myself on those planes packed full of people who are happy to go home and see their relatives. Many of them have saved for two years or more for their flights. I put it to the Minister that £75 might not seem much to the Treasury, but when people are paying for a family of four, five or six, it amounts to a lot of money. People have often saved up for their flights for years, and that sum is a big consideration.
	I am appealing not only to the Minister's humanitarian instincts, however. I know from talking to Ministers of whatever party that I would do that in vain. I also want to talk about the effects of air passenger duty on British business and on the economies of the Caribbean.

Richard Fuller: The hon. Lady is making some excellent points. Before she moves on to business, I would like to encourage her to talk more about the matter of equity, although she says that she would do so in vain. Many people from my constituency travel to destinations in the Caribbean, and many of them came to this country in the 1950s, '60s or '70s. They have often spent their careers working in the public sector on very low incomes, and many are now pensioners. For them, £75 is a very significant cost. They have siblings, perhaps aunties, and certainly nephews and nieces back on the Caribbean islands-not only Jamaica but many others. Does the hon. Lady agree, notwithstanding the excellent points that she has made about geography and is about to make about business, that there is a strong equity case for the Minister to review the question of air passenger duty?

Diane Abbott: The hon. Gentleman has made his point very well indeed. Many of those people, particularly the older ones, have contributed to this country. Some of the generation who came to this country after the war helped to rebuild its public sector, and they have worked all their lives. As I have said, the sums of money involved might seem relatively minor to a Treasury official, but they represent a huge imposition on those people who love this country and who are almost invariably British citizens but who also have a great love for the country of their birth. One thing that makes this seem all the more unfair to those people is that air passenger duty is not charged on private aircraft. If this were really an environmental measure, one would expect it to be charged on private aircraft. I will come back to that point later.
	It is my contention that air passenger duty is having a negative effect on British business. I have evidence that British business travellers are flying to the continent, then flying to the Caribbean from there, because it is cheaper to do so. Business travellers contribute £70 million to the British economy-money that is slowly being lost due to airport passenger duty charges. Aviation taxation is putting the UK at a competitive disadvantage in comparison with our European neighbours. This duty will incentivise the strengthening of alternative hubs to the UK both in and outside Europe. In the end, it could well reduce the number and connection of destinations served by UK airports.
	Let me move on to tourism. I have been in the House quite a few years and I have lived to see Caribbean countries urged to restructure their economies and to move away from old-fashioned economies, such as those based on bananas and sugar, into financial services, which ended badly. Then they were encouraged to restructure the economy and diversify into tourism. Thus the Caribbean tourism industry now employs, directly and indirectly, more than 1.9 million people-11% of the region's work force. In important tourist destinations such as Jamaica and Barbados, as much as 25% of the work force are engaged in tourism, while 60% of St Lucia's gross domestic product derives from tourism. For the Barbados hotel industry, a significant number of holidaymakers are British, and there is no question that the tourism industry in the Caribbean has been damaged by the increases in this duty.
	Arrivals from the UK to the Caribbean are now in decline, while those from other markets are increasing. The latest figure from the UK Office for National Statistics shows that visits to the Caribbean by UK residents in 2010 were 16% lower than for the same period in 2009. Visits to Barbados for the same period were 22% lower. For a tourist, as opposed to someone with family links to the region, the Florida Keys is now a cheaper destination. In respect of our air passenger duty arrangements, the whole system is wrong and it is having an effect on British citizens who happen to have links with the Caribbean.

Chuka Umunna: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on an incredibly important issue. I represent one of the constituencies with the biggest Caribbean diaspora populations in the country. It covers Brixton, for example, and this is a huge issue in my community. I endorse all my hon. Friend's comments, but would add one more. If this measure were primarily about increasing sustainability and reducing emissions, one would have thought that the proceeds would be used for environmental purposes. My understanding is, however-I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong-that the sums raised from this duty go back into the general pot. Will the Minister also answer a specific point that was put to me? How can it be fair to charge a greater level of tax to fly to Jamaica-there are many Jamaican families in my constituency-than to fly the whole way to Hawaii? I would appreciate an answer on that.

Diane Abbott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes his point very well. He raised the question of the avowed environmental intent of the duty. I remember that when passenger duties were put forward under a Labour Government, Ministers said that they were there largely in order to help the environment and discourage unnecessary airline travel. This Government have stated that the rises in air passenger duty are partly intended to help achieve environmental goals.
	Far be it for me to accuse any Government-whether it be my own or the present Government-of glossing over the reality, but the truth is that if APD were really about achieving environmental goals, it would be calculated differently. For instance, APD is calculated according to only element of a given flight-the distance travelled, not according to whether the plane is full or half-empty. A whole range of other factors are relevant to environmental impacts, including the type and age of the aircraft, the time it spends in the air and how heavy it is, but the Government choose not to take those factors into account in calculating aviation tax rates.
	As I have said, if this is really about the environment, why is no duty charged on private aircraft? The failure to establish a way of calculating the duty that would actually minimise the effect on the environment gives people the impression that, although Ministers may indeed believe in the environmental benefit, it may be no more than a pretext on the part of their officials.
	If we want to persuade people to abandon planes for other forms of transport, it is surely logical for APD to bear more heavily on short-haul flights, to which there are genuine alternatives in the form of trains and boats. What, though, is the alternative for the retired nurse living in Hackney who wants to return to Jamaica every couple of years to see her friends and family? There is no such alternative, but we are imposing these big APD rates on her flight, or that of her family.
	Having raised the issue under the last Government, I have taken the earliest possible opportunity to raise it again now.

Fiona Mactaggart: I joined my hon. Friend in some of her representations to the last Government. My impression was always that Ministers found the issue too difficult to deal with, and that civil servants thought it a nice tidy way of arranging things to impose air passenger duty in accordance with the locations of the capitals of the countries to which people were travelling. However, would it not be possible to devise an equally simple APD system based on, for example, time zones? Surely a determined Minister who wished the duty to reflect the real distance involved would be able to corner his or her civil servants into achieving such an end.

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend and I went on a number of delegations to Treasury Ministers, and found them-as Ministers always are-well-meaning, kindly and ostensibly understanding of our case. However, they were simply unable to stand up to their officials. We look to this new Treasury Minister for more stoutness of heart and firmness of purpose.

Chuka Umunna: I think it important for us to send the public-our constituents-the message that this is not a party-political issue. I have obtained a very good House of Commons note on the subject, and I know that the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), who is sitting behind the Minister, made a number of excellent points about it in the debate on the Finance Bill in, I think, 2009.

Diane Abbott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I agree that this is not a party-political issue, but one on which Members on both sides of the House feel strongly. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) that Ministers should show some fixity of purpose. The present method of calculation is indefensible in terms of both equity and environmental impact, and it could have a big impact on British business by removing the incentive for business-class travellers to make long-haul flights to the Caribbean from London rather than from the continental hub. It is bad for business, it is bad for the Caribbean's economy-of which tourism is a vital part during an international downturn-and it is bad for British citizens with business interests or family members in the region who simply want to be able to travel at an affordable price.
	I have pursued this issue for some time, but I have every hope that a new set of Treasury Ministers will view the arguments afresh, and will undertake to reconsider the way in which air passenger duty is calculated. We appreciate that the Treasury's tax take must remain the same, and, as I said at the outset, we appreciate that there is a genuine environmental case for seeking to lessen air travel over time. However, we consider the present level of air passenger duty to be unfair, indefensible, and a burden on the Caribbean which this Government should seek to lift.

Justine Greening: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on securing this debate. She eloquently ran through some of her concerns about the way in which air passenger duty is currently structured. She is asking me, as a Minister, to defend the current structure, but it is difficult for me to take responsibility for the structure of APD, given that it was entirely put in place by the previous Government. I took on board the questions put by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) about the fairness of the structure, but he would be better placed asking his party leader and the now shadow Chancellor about the logic that the previous Government used in approaching these issues and how they thought about the issue of fairness with respect to Caribbean countries.

Diane Abbott: I am the last person to defend the previous Government mindlessly. I made it clear from the very beginning of my speech that I made this argument to the outgoing Government and was disappointed by their response. Nobody is asking the Minister to defend the current system, because we know that incoming Ministers have to deal with the hand that they are dealt. What I am asking her to do is to reconsider the current system-that is a different point.

Justine Greening: In that case, I have good news for the hon. Lady. She was doubtless paying close attention to the emergency Budget in June, when we said that we would look at reforming APD. We recognise some of the shortcomings in the existing system's structure, and in the next few minutes, I am going to discuss some of the issues that she has raised.
	First, it is important to say that the new coalition Government recognise the importance of the strong ties that exist between the UK and Caribbean countries. As a London Member, a large number of my constituents have strong family ties with the Caribbean and they spend a lot of time saving up to go there, travelling there and spending time there, as well as having relatives come over to see them in this country. So the hon. Lady makes an important point about these links. We must also not forget the Caribbean's relationship within the Commonwealth, which is a further incredibly important link with our country.
	When the hon. Lady wrote to me recently to raise her concerns about this issue, she rightly highlighted the context within which the coalition Government are operating. Clearly the fact that we have inherited a record budget deficit has meant that some of the tax rises announced by the previous Government, such as the increase in APD rates that came into effect last November, simply could not be avoided. She referred to the APD bandings, which are the aspect of APD that concerns the Caribbean countries most, and I need not remind her that they were the brainchild of the previous Administration, not this Government.
	However, we need to look forward, which is why today's debate is worth while and important. The hon. Lady was right also to point out the role that aviation and business plays. The coalition Government recognise that as we get the economy back on track and as the recovery in the world economy starts to gather pace, aviation can play an important part in delivering future growth for the UK economy. Without continuous improvements in air connectivity, we risk endangering future growth and prosperity in the UK. She talked about the importance, particularly for the Caribbean tourism industry, of the aviation connection with the United Kingdom. I shall discuss that in a little more detail shortly, but she will be aware that I met representatives from the Caribbean countries and the Caribbean Council here in London last year, once we started to ensure that we were talking to all the stakeholders who had an interest in the reform of APD. Of course, they were an important group that I needed to talk to face to face. We had a very helpful meeting and they set out their case effectively to me that afternoon.
	The hon. Lady raised some particular concerns today and in the letter that she wrote to me, and I shall do my best to address them. First, she talked about the contrast between the duties paid on flights to the Caribbean and to other destinations, including the United States. It is true that the current four band structure of air passenger duty based on the distances between London and the capital cities of other destination countries-something that was brought in under the previous Government-has the effect of placing the Caribbean in a higher tax band than the United States. Such issues are common to any banded system. I do not particularly want to defend the existing structure of APD and how the previous Government changed the tax system, but it is difficult to have any banding system that solves all the problems raised. Whichever approach we take-she mentioned time zones-there are trade-offs between equity, simplicity and effectiveness. She is right to point out that the current banding system has some downsides, but it is also fair to be pragmatic about the fact that any banding system will have its downsides.
	The second point, which is very fair, concerns APD as structured and the environment. I shall not try to defend the way that APD is structured in that regard, but the new coalition Government have been very clear that we have a strong sense of purpose about the environment. We want to be the greenest Government ever. We know that alongside other major sources of emissions, the aviation sector needs to start to take proper account of its global environmental impact in the future. It is also worth recognising that from 2012 aviation will be part of the EU emissions trading scheme. That is an important step forward in ensuring that the environmental impact of aviation is better taken into account as part of the overall fiscal environment.
	The coalition Government's approach to the environment will be guided by the evidence. We do not think that there is anything to be gained by empty rhetoric on the environment, so I am very clear that we need to take a fresh look at how best to deliver our environmental objectives in a way that is fair to passengers-the hon. Lady has talked about her concerns about passengers flying to and from the Caribbean-and to industry, which has perhaps never been more important than it is now. Also, we must not lose sight of the need for the UK to have economic growth while tackling the clear problems with emissions.

Diane Abbott: It is important that we as a country achieve our environmental goals, but our environmental goals should not necessarily conflict with other wider development goals, such as the millennium development goals. As regards the impact of the air passenger duty as constructed on a region that, although it is ostensibly a middle income region, has communities that are among the poorest in the world, I see no reason why environmental goals cannot be co-ordinated with broader development goals.

Justine Greening: In many respects, that is precisely what we are trying to do. We are trying to see where we can strike the balance. That is one reason why, at the emergency Budget, we talked about wanting to reform APD. The hon. Lady is setting out some of the challenges, and finding the right mix in an approach to APD that means that we try to square off some of the difficult issues at the same time will not be easy. Debates such as this, and the time that I am taking to meet the various stakeholders-not just the Caribbean countries and their interests, particularly in tourism, but the aviation industry, airports and business in general-

Richard Fuller: I greatly appreciate my hon. Friend giving way. I have admired the rigour of her analysis as she has gone about her duties as a Minister as well as her powerful advocacy. If I may, I want to encourage her to use the second part of her talents-her advocacy. There is a strong equity case for people in this country to consider carefully the APD ratings for Caribbean islands. A significant number of people who have made their home here like to go home to their place of birth and origin. We all want to see the environmental goals that she has discussed accomplished, but there is a strong and powerful equity case. I ask her, through her rigour, to give due regard to that case as well as to the other competing pressures.

Justine Greening: I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend points out the impact on local communities but, in a friendly way, I would challenge the point about contradictions. In terms of our tourism industry and our need for links with other countries to drive economic growth, this is very healthy. Our relationship with the Caribbean and the role that aviation plays in helping us to maintain that more broadly is particularly important, so we are not necessarily faced with an either/or choice.
	One of the most intractable problems we face, which underpins the whole approach in the Treasury, is the unavoidable challenge of tackling the fiscal deficit. We are faced with that while also making sure that the tax measures in place work effectively and do not have the sort of negative impacts that we do not want or need them to have.

Chuka Umunna: I should like to follow up the point about equity made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), which I endorse. The key issue is the banding system, which was, admittedly, introduced by the previous Labour Government-I think one of the Minister's predecessors referred to it as being rather rough and ready-and I would not necessarily endorse the form of APD that they put in place. The Minister says that the coalition Government have undertaken to review the system, but can she tell us when we can expect the results of the review? Obviously, the Budget will be on 23 March. Are the results of the review likely to be announced then or beforehand? That information would be useful to the industry and the many families who want to plan what they will be doing in the next few months.

Justine Greening: First, it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the Budget statement. What I can say-we have already been clear about this-is that any major change to air passenger duty will be subject to consultation. One thing that we have learned from looking at how this tax and others have been changed in the past is that we need a sensible tax-making policy that involves not just the Treasury thinking about the objectives it wants to achieve, but talking with stakeholders. There is a need to issue a consultation document to which people can respond and then draft legislation to make sure that the final legislation can achieve the aims we have agreed on and that have come out of the consultation.
	I cannot give the hon. Member for Streatham any timings for all that, but I can tell him that we want to ensure that any reforms we bring forward will work as intended. He quoted a previous Minister saying that the system was rough and ready. We want to avoid making another change to APD that brings other problems we have not anticipated. Whatever we do in this area, it is impossible to get the perfect system, but we need to understand the pros and cons of any particular approach. We need to understand what the risks are and whether we can mitigate them. He is right to ask about timelines. The fact that we said in the previous Budget that we want to review and reform APD and that we have been working on that and meeting a variety of stakeholders to get their views shows that we want to do this in a thoughtful way rather than just announcing something that would be a surprise to the industry and to people who are trying to plan for their holidays.
	Let me finish by saying that I recognise the urgency with which the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington wants this area of tax policy to be changed. However, I think we are right to work out cautiously which path we want to go down. That is why we talked about reviewing the existing APD regime in the June Budget. As I have said, in the past few months I have met a variety of stakeholders, particularly from the Caribbean countries and the Caribbean Council in London. Those discussions have been very helpful and I have had a useful and detailed report from the Caribbean countries about their views on how we could reform APD. Obviously, we will look at that carefully. I am determined to make sure that we continue that constructive dialogue and I hope that in doing so we can ensure that wherever we end up with the reform of APD we will have done a better job of making sure that-
	 House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).